Etd PDF

ABSTRACT
BREZAC, BORIS. Seismic Behavior of SIMCON-Jacketed High Strength Lightweight

Aggregate Fiber Reinforced Concrete Filled Steel Tube Column Members. (Under the
direction of Dr. Neven Krstulovic-Opara.)
Earthquake resistant structures and structures deteriorated due to earthquake and lack of
durability inspired engineers to develop novel structural systems. During the recent
decades advanced fiber reinforced cementitious composites such as High-Performance
Fiber Reinforced Concretes (HPFRCs) have been developed. These innovative composite
materials exhibit behavior not attainable with conventional concrete materials, such as
high compressive and tensile strength, as well as ductility, which lead to a significant
increase in the ability of the structure to dissipate energy. These properties are
particularly desirable seismic resistant design. However, existing procedures for design,
detailing and construction of reinforced concrete frames are not well suited for cost-
effective construction with HPFRCs because HPFRCs are substantially different from
conventional concrete materials. The structural system consisted of partially precast High
Performance Composite Frames (HPCFs) has been investigated to address these issues in
this National Science Foundation project. Such a composite frame is made by selectively
using Slurry Infiltrated Mat Concrete (SIMCON), Slurry Infiltrated Fiber Concrete
(SIFCON), and High Strength - Lightweight Aggregate Fiber Reinforced Concrete (HS-
LWA FRC). The objective is to increase the overall seismic resistance and simplify the
post-earthquake retrofit procedures, while at the same time minimizing the cost by
simplifying the construction procedure and increasing the speed of construction. This
thesis presents the development, testing and behavior of an integral part of this innovative
approach to earthquake resistant structures.

HS-LWA FRC encased in steel tube allows for both improved seismic resistance and
possibly more cost-effective method of construction than in conventional structures. The
use of SIMCON jacket for HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube column member enhances the
seismic behavior of the column, as well as it increases the durability and fire resistance of
such a column member. SIMCON jacket provides additional energy dissipation under
extreme earthquake loading and because of the fiber mat feature of SIMCON, used and
deteriorated SIMCON jacket can be relatively easily replaced after the end of earthquake
loading. Main objective of this research was to manufacture, test and analyze the seismic
behavior of the SIMCON jacketed HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube column member, as
well as compare its behavior and performance to HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube column
member. The SIMCON jacketed HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube column was tested under
static-reversed cyclic loading. A cantilever type setup was used in this investigation and
the column specimen was tested in pure bending. Ductility, stiffness degradation, energy
dissipation, work index, damage index and hysteretic damping ratio were examined. The
specimen dissipated large amount of energy and quite satisfactory level of ductility was
reached. Testing of the SIMCON jacketed HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube column
showed that increase in strength, story drift ratio and dissipated energy was developed
comparing to HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube column. SIMCON jacket postponed the
outwards buckling of the steel tube.

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SIMCON-JACKETED HIGH STRENGTH
LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE
FILLED STEEL TUBE COLUMN MEMBERS
by
BORIS BREZAC
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

North Carolina State University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Raleigh
2002
APPROVED BY:
________________________________ ________________________________
_____________________________
Chair of Advisory Committee
To my family
ii
BIOGRAPHY
Boris Brezac was born on October 20, 1971 in Pula, Croatia. After graduating from
Branko Semelić High School, Pula, Croatia in 1989, he pursued his education at the
University of Rijeka, College of Civil Engineering, Rijeka, Croatia. While studying at the
University of Rijeka, he began to work as a Structural Designer with RI-ISA d.o.o.,
Rijeka, which is part of Permasteelisa Group. In 1998, the author received his degree of
Diplomed Civil Engineer and continued to work with RI-ISA d.o.o. until June 2000.
In July 2000, he joined the graduate program of North Carolina State University in Civil
Engineering, Raleigh, North Carolina. The author worked as a teaching and research
assistant during his Master of Science study. He investigated the seismic behavior of
SIMCON-jacketed high strength lightweight aggregate fiber reinforced concrete (HS-
LWA FRC) filled steel tube column members. The research project that he has worked
on was supported by the National Science Foundation and conducted under the direction
of Dr. Neven Krstulovic-Opara.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express his gratitude to Dr. Neven Krstulovic-Opara for his
supervision and genuine interest throughout the course of this study. Acknowledgements
are also due to other members of the Advisory Committee, Dr. James M. Nau and Dr.
Tasnim Hassan from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina for their
constructive advice, suggestions and contributions to the study.
The author gratefully acknowledges Dr. Mervyn Kowalsky of North Carolina State
University for his significant advice and suggestions. Special appreciation goes to fellow
graduate students Jose Punchin, Bryan Ewing, Adrian Durham, Ghassan Chebab, Kevin
Wilkins, Hilmi Coskun and Bryan Wood for their help in specimen preparation and
testing. I am most grateful to the staff of the Constructed Facilities Laboratory, Jerry
Atkinson and Bill Dunleavy for their help and cooperation in the experimental work. I
would also like to extend thanks to N. Buljan from RI-ISA d.o.o., Rijeka, Croatia and
professors from University of Rijeka, College of Civil Engineering, Croatia, Dr. Ivo
Podhorsky, Dr. Gojko Balabanić and Dr. Mehmed Čaušević who had a great influence in
helping me choose the fascinating career of structural engineering.
This research was supported by NSF – Earthquake Hazard Mitigation, US-Japan

Cooperative Research Program. The author is grateful to Apex Steel Corporation, Apex,
NC, which provided the steel tube, Elkem Chemicals, Pittsburgh, PA, which supplied the
microsilica slurry and superplasticizer, Carolina Stalite Company, Salisbury, NC, which
supplied the lightweight aggregate, and Ribbon Technology Corporation, Gahanna, OH,
which provided fiber-mats used in this investigation.
A debt of love and special thanks are expressed to Igor and Ginger for their
encouragement and support throughout my studies. Their inspiration was essential in the
successful completion of this thesis.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Topic Overview 1
1.1.1 Column Member 2
1.1.2 Beam Member 4
1.1.3 SIFCON Fuse 9
1.2 CFT Reference Specimen 11
1.3 Research Objectives 14
1.4 Research Methods 14
1.5 Scope 15
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 16
2.1 Background on Concrete Filled Tubular Members 16
2.2 Interaction between Concrete and Steel – Onset of Confinement 17
2.3 Parameters Affecting CFT Behavior 18
2.3.1 Effect of Bond 19
2.3.2 Effect of Cross-Section Shape 20
2.3.3 Effect of Slenderness (L/D) 20
2.3.4 Effect of Aspect Ratio (D/t) 21
2.3.5 Effect of Concrete Compressive Strength 22
2.3.6 Effect of Steel Yield Strength 22
2.2.7 Effect of Axial Load 22
3 MATERIALS 24
3.1 Steel 24
3.1.1 Material Behavior 24
v
3.1.1.1 Instrumentation 26
3.1.1.2 Modulus of Elasticity 27
3.1.1.3 Tension 28
3.2 High Strength Light-Weight Aggregate Fiber Reinforced Concrete 30
3.2.1 Manufacturing Procedure 30
3.2.2.3 Compression 44
3.2.2.4 Split-Tensile Strength 47
3.3 Slurry Infiltrated Mat Concrete 47
3.3.1 Manufacturing Procedure 47
3.3.2.3 Compression 52
3.3.2.4 Tension 57
4 HP-FRC SPECIMEN GEOMETRY AND MANUFACTURING 59

4.1 Specimen Geometry 59
4.2 Specimen Manufacturing 66
4.2.1 SIMCON Jacket 66
4.2.2 HS-LWA FRC Core 72
4.2.3 Footing 74
5 TESTING AND BEHAVIOR OF HP-FRC SPECIMEN 79

5.1 Instrumentation 79
5.1.1 Strain Gages 83
5.1.2 Potentiometers 90
5.1.3 Linear Voltage Differential Transformer 94
vi
5.1.4 String Potentiometer 94
5.1.5 Clinometers 95
5.1.6 Load Cell - MTS Actuator 97
5.1.7 Data Acquisition 98
5.2 Test Set-Up 99
5.3 Test Overview 104
5.4 Response of HP-FRC Column Specimen 105
5.4.1 Longitudinal Strain Behavior 106
5.4.2 Load-Displacement Response 110
5.4.3 Moment-Curvature Response 112
5.4.3.1 Zone A 113
5.4.3.2 Zone B 114
5.4.3.3 Zone C 114
5.4.3.4 Zone D 115
5.4.3.5 Zone E 116
5.4.3.6 Zone F 117
5.4.3.7 Zone G 119
5.4.4 Physical Observations 121
6 DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS 134

6.1 Analysis on HP-FRC Column Specimen Behavior 138
6.1.1 Ductility 139
6.1.2 Stiffness 142
6.1.3 Energy Dissipation 142
6.1.4 Hysteretic Damping Ratio 168
6.2 Comparison to CFT reference specimen 169
6.3 Comparison to analytical prediction 179
7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 185

7.1 Summary 185
vii
7.2 Conclusions 186
7.3 Recommendations 188
REFERENCES 190
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 – Modulus of elasticity of the steel specimens 27

Table 3.2 – Yield strength, ultimate tensile strength and yield strain of the steel
coupons 29
Table 3.3 – Proportions of HS-LWA FRC components 32
Table 3.4 – Moisture content of the aggregate and sand 32
Table 3.5 – Weights of the components per 0.75 ft3 of the HS-LWA FRC 32
Table 3.6 – Comparison of the loading rates (calibrow/calibcolumn) 41
Table 3.7 – Modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of the HS-LWA FRC
specimens obtained using BLH machine 43
Table 3.8 – Static modulus of elasticity of the HS-LWA FRC specimens obtained
using Forney machine 44
Table 3.9 – Compressive strength and longitudinal strain of the HS-LWA FRC
specimens 45
Table 3.10 – Splitting tensile strength of the HS-LWA FRC specimens 47
Table 3.11 – Proportions of SIMCON slurry components 48
Table 3.12 – Weights of the components per 1.27 ft3 of the SIMCON slurry 48
Table 3.13 – Flowability test of SIMCON slurry 51
Table 3.14 – Modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of the SIMCON slurry
specimens 52
Table 3.15 – Compressive strength and longitudinal strain of the SIMCON slurry
specimens 53
Table 3.16 – Average tensile strength of the SIMCON specimens 57
Table 5.1 – Distances from the load axis to the middle of each zone 80
Table 5.2 – Calibration data 81
Table 5.3a – Tag list for the instruments 81
Table 5.3b – Tag list for the instruments 82
Table 5.3c – Tag list for the instruments 83
Table 5.4 – Strain gage properties 87
ix
Table 5.5 – Clinometer properties 97
Table 5.6 – Load/displacement history and corresponding rates of loading 105
Table 6.1 – Hysteretic damping ratio versus displacement ductility for “half cycles” 168
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 – Beam-column sub-assemblage of the HPFC 2

Figure 1.2 – Horizontal cross-section of the HS-LWA FRC column member 3
Figure 1.3 – Horizontal cross-section of the SIMCON jacketed HS-LWA FRC column
member 3
Figure 1.4 – SIMCON stay-in-place formwork 5
Figure 1.5a – Cross-sections of the beam member near connection region 5
Figure 1.5b – Cross-section of the beam member outside end region 6
Figure 1.6 – Longitudinal sections of the beam member 6
Figure 1.7 – Beam cantilever type reverse-cyclic test set-up 7
Figure 1.8 – Reverse-cyclic test set-up for the beam member 7
Figure 1.9 – Three-point monotonic test set-up for the beam member 8
Figure 1.10 – Moment-curvature response of the critical beam region (Ply, 2000) 8
Figure 1.11 – SIFCON fuse formwork mold filled with the fibers 9
Figure 1.12 – Test set-up for SIFCON fuse specimen 10
Figure 1.13 – Typical cross section of SIFCON fuse specimen 10
Figure 1.14 – Moment-curvature response of the SIFCON fuse (Wood, 2000) 11
Figure 1.15 – Side view of the CFT reference specimen 12
Figure 1.16 – Horizontal section of the CFT reference specimen above the doubler
plate 12
Figure 1.17 – Horizontal section of the CFT reference specimen through the doubler
plates 13
Figure 1.18 – Vertical section of the CFT reference specimen 13
Figure 1.19 – Test layout 14
Figure 3.1 – Geometry of the 0.5 in and 1.5 in wide longitudinal strip specimens 25
Figure 3.2 – 0.5 in wide longitudinal strip specimen 25
Figure 3.3 – Broken 1.5 in wide longitudinal strip specimen 25
Figure 3.4 – MTS 647 hydraulic wedge grip and MTS load frame 26
Figure 3.5 – Test set-up for the longitudinal strip tension test 27
xi
Figure 3.6 – Offset method for evaluating the yield strength and yield strain 28
Figure 3.7 – Stress-strain curves for the longitudinal strip specimens
(A 53 Grade B) 29
Figure 3.8 – Failure of the longitudinal strip specimens (A 53 Grade B) 30
Figure 3.9 – 30/50 hooked Dramix fibers 31
Figure 3.10 – Buckets of the measured material 34
Figure 3.11 – Zyklos ZZ 75 HE mixer 34
Figure 3.12 – Plastic cylinder molds 35
Figure 3.13 – Moist-curing of the cylindrical specimens 36
Figure 3.14 – Smoothening of the HS-LWA FRC specimens 36
Figure 3.15 – Forney Fortec RT-1 machine 37
Figure 3.16 – Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton machine and MTS controller #406 38
Figure 3.17 – Test set-up for the compression test 39
Figure 3.18 – Geometry of the test set-up for the compression test 39
Figure 3.19 – Comparison of loading rates (no load applied) - “calibration 2” 40
Figure 3.20 – Comparison of loading rates (no load applied) - “calibration 4” 41
Figure 3.21 – Comparison of loading rates - “loading rate 1” 42
Figure 3.22 – Comparison of loading rates - “loading rate 2” 42
Figure 3.23 – Stress-strain curves for HS-LWA FRC (longitudinal strain) 45
Figure 3.24 – Stress-strain curves for HS-LWA FRC (volumetric strain) 46
Figure 3.25 – Crushed cylindrical HS-LWA FRC specimen 46
Figure 3.26 – Hobart mixer 49
Figure 3.27 – Stainless steel fiber mat 50
Figure 3.28 – Stress-strain curves for SIMCON slurry (longitudinal strain) 54
Figure 3.29 – Stress-strain curves for SIMCON slurry (volumetric strain) 54
Figure 3.30 – Stress-strain behavior of SIMCON in compression
(longitudinal strain) 56
Figure 3.31 – Stress-strain behavior of SIMCON in tension
(longitudinal strain) 58
Figure 4.1 – Side view of the specimen 59
xii
Figure 4.2 – Horizontal section through the SIMCON jacket above
the doubler plate 60
Figure 4.3 – Horizontal section through the doubler plates
and the SIMCON jacket 60
Figure 4.4 – Horizontal section through the doubler plates
below the SIMCON jacket 61
Figure 4.5 – Vertical sections of the specimen 61
Figure 4.6 – Footing reinforcement schedule 62
Figure 4.7 – Footing reinforcement plan (top level) 63
Figure 4.8 – Footing reinforcement plan (bottom level) 64
Figure 4.9 – Footing reinforcement plan (bent bars) 65
Figure 4.10 – Cutting the fiber mat 67
Figure 4.11 – Attaching the fiber mat 68
Figure 4.12 – Attaching the second layer of the fiber mat 68
Figure 4.13 – Sliding the SONO tube formwork over the fiber mats 69
Figure 4.14 – Silicone application 69
Figure 4.15 – SONO tube formwork attached to the plywood closure 70
Figure 4.16 – Specimen attached to the vibrating table 70
Figure 4.17 – SIMCON slurry injection 71
Figure 4.18 – Specimen after the SIMCON jacket curing was finished 72
Figure 4.19 – Specimen fixed to the vibrating table 73
Figure 4.20 – Anchorage rods supported by the wood frame 73
Figure 4.21 – Big hopper used for pouring the HS-LWA FRC mix into
the steel tube 74
Figure 4.22 – The anchorage rods 75
Figure 4.23 – HS FRC base 75
Figure 4.24 – Prestressed footing reinforcement and formwork 76
Figure 4.25 – Steel reinforcement around the steel tube 77
Figure 4.26 – Steel reinforcement at location of Dywidag prestressing bars 77
Figure 4.27 – Dywidag bars and accessories (Dykerhoff and Widmann, Inc.) 78
xiii
Figure 5.1 – Specimen zones of interest 80
Figure 5.2 – Cross-sectional location of the strain gages 86
Figure 5.3 – Location of vertically and horizontally attached strain gages 87
Figure 5.4 – Vertically attached strain gage 88
Figure 5.5 – Horizontally attached strain gage 88
Figure 5.6 – Vertically attached strain gages on the south side of the specimen 89
Figure 5.7 – Horizontally attached strain gages on the west side of the specimen 89
Figure 5.8 – Supports for potentiometers 90
Figure 5.9 – Potentiometers on the north side of the specimen 91
Figure 5.10 – Potentiometer fixed to its supports 91
Figure 5.11 – Cross-sectional location of the potentiometers 92
Figure 5.12 – Potentiometers layout 92
Figure 5.13 – Potentiometers and corresponding strain gages on the south side 93
Figure 5.14 – LVDT fixed at the south side of the specimen 94
Figure 5.15 – String potentiometer attached to the reaction wall 95
Figure 5.16 – Clinometers on the west side of the specimen 96
Figure 5.17 – Cross-sectional location of the clinometers 96
Figure 5.18 – Clinometers layout 97
Figure 5.19 – MTS actuator 98
Figure 5.20 – Instruments connected to the data acquisition 99
Figure 5.21 – Test layout 100
Figure 5.22 – Whitewashed specimen 100
Figure 5.23 – Location of the doubler plate marked on the SIMCON jacket 101
Figure 5.24 – Instruments mounted to the specimen 101
Figure 5.25 – Actuator attached to the specimen 102
Figure 5.26 – Cross-sectional location of the instrumentation 102
Figure 5.27 – Location of the instrumentation attached to the specimen 103
Figure 5.28 – Test set-up 103
Figure 5.29 – Load/displacement history 104
Figure 5.30a – Moment-strain response of zone G - north side (steel strain gages) 107
xiv
Figure 5.30b – Moment-strain response of zone G - north side (SIMCON
strain gages) 108
Figure 5.30c – Moment-strain response of zone G - north side (potentiometers) 108
Figure 5.30d – Moment-strain response of zones G and F at the north side 109
Figure 5.30e – Moment-strain response of zones G and F at the south side 109
Figure 5.31 – Load-displacement response of the HP-FRC column specimen 111
Figure 5.32 – Limit state conditions of the HP-FRC column specimen 112
Figure 5.33 – Moment-curvature response of the zone A 113
Figure 5.34 – Moment-curvature response of the zone B 114
Figure 5.35 – Moment-curvature response of the zone C 115
Figure 5.36 – Moment-curvature response of the zone D 116
Figure 5.37 – Moment-curvature response of the zone E 117
Figure 5.38 – Moment-curvature response of the zone F 118
Figure 5.39 – Modified moment-curvature response of the zone F 119
Figure 5.40 – Moment-curvature response of the zone G 120
Figure 5.41 – Modified moment-curvature response of the zone G 121
Figure 5.42 – First cracks occurred on the north side of column specimen
in the cycle 17 123
Figure 5.43 – First cracks occurred on the south side of column specimen
in the cycle 17 123
Figure 5.44 – Major crack on the north side that will control the failure 124
Figure 5.45 – Major crack on the south side that will control the failure 124
Figure 5.46 – Vertical cracks occurred in the compression zone (north side) 125
Figure 5.47 – Two major cracks joined on the west side of the column 125
Figure 5.48 – Crack pattern on the north side at the peak load of cycle 29 126
Figure 5.49 – Crack pattern on the south side during the cycle 34 126
Figure 5.50 – Crack pattern on the north-east side during the cycle 34 127
Figure 5.51 – Significant deformation of the column specimen during the cycle 34 127
Figure 5.52 – The test was stopped during the cycle 37 due to column instability 128
Figure 5.53 – Crack through the SIMCON jacket and steel tube on the north side 128
xv
Figure 5.54 – Northwest side of the column specimen in the failure region 129
Figure 5.55 – West side of the column specimen in the failure region 129
Figure 5.56 – Southwest side of the column specimen in the failure region 130
Figure 5.57 – South side of the column specimen in the failure region 130
Figure 5.58 – Southeast side of the column specimen in the failure region 131
Figure 5.59 – East side of the column specimen in the failure region 131
Figure 5.60 – Northeast side of the column specimen in the failure region 132
Figure 5.61 – After the failure the bottom part of the column specimen
was examined 132
Figure 5.62 – After the failure the top part of the column specimen was examined 133
Figure 6.1 – Definition of hysteretic damping ratio 138
Figure 6.2 – Load-displacement envelope and displacement ductility 140
Figure 6.3 – Moment-curvature envelope of the zone G 141
Figure 6.4 – Moment-curvature envelopes of all zones 141
Figure 6.5 – Stiffness degradation 142
Figure 6.6 – Dissipated energy in each cycle for “half cycles” 144
Figure 6.7 – Dissipated energy in each cycle for “full and estimated cycles” 144
Figure 6.8 – Cumulative dissipated energy for “half cycles” 145
Figure 6.9 – Cumulative dissipated energy for “full and estimated cycles” 145
Figure 6.10 – Dissipated energy within the zone A for “half cycles” 147
Figure 6.11 – Dissipated energy within the zone A for “full and estimated cycles” 147
Figure 6.12 – Dissipated energy within the zone B for “half cycles” 148
Figure 6.13 – Dissipated energy within the zone B for “full and estimated cycles” 148
Figure 6.14 – Dissipated energy within the zone C for “half cycles” 149
Figure 6.15 – Dissipated energy within the zone C for “full and estimated cycles” 149
Figure 6.16 – Dissipated energy within the zone D for “half cycles” 150
Figure 6.17 – Dissipated energy within the zone D for “full and estimated cycles” 150
Figure 6.18 – Dissipated energy within the zone E for “half cycles” 151
Figure 6.19 – Dissipated energy within the zone E for “full and estimated cycles” 151
Figure 6.20 – Dissipated energy within the zone F for “half cycles” 152
xvi
Figure 6.21 – Dissipated energy within the zone F for “full and estimated cycles” 152
Figure 6.22 – Dissipated energy within the zone G for “half cycles” 153
Figure 6.23 – Dissipated energy within the zone G for “full and estimated cycles” 153
Figure 6.24 – Dissipated energy within all zones for “half cycles” 154
Figure 6.25 – Dissipated energy within all zones for “full and estimated cycles” 154
Figure 6.26 – Dissipated energy within zones E, F and G for “half cycles” 155
Figure 6.27 – Dissipated energy by zones E, F and G for “full and
estimated cycles” 155
Figure 6.28 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone A for “half cycles” 156
Figure 6.29 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone A for “full and
Figure 6.30 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone B for “half cycles” 157
Figure 6.31 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone B for “full and
Figure 6.32 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone C for “half cycles” 158
Figure 6.33 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone C for “full and
Figure 6.34 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone D for “half cycles” 159
Figure 6.35 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone D for “full and
Figure 6.36 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone E for “half cycles” 160
Figure 6.37 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone E for “full and
Figure 6.38 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone F for “half cycles” 161
Figure 6.39 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone F for “full and
Figure 6.40 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone G for “half cycles” 162
Figure 6.41 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone G for “full and
Figure 6.42 – Cumulative dissipated energy within all zones for “half cycles” 163
xvii
Figure 6.43 – Cumulative dissipated energy within all zones for “full and
Figure 6.44 – Total dissipated energy by all zones for “half cycles” 164
Figure 6.45 – Total dissipated energy by all zones for “full and estimated cycles” 164
Figure 6.46 – Normalize dissipated energy for “half cycles” 165
Figure 6.47 – Normalized dissipated energy for “full and estimated cycles” 166
Figure 6.48 – Work index for “half cycles” 166
Figure 6.49 – Work index for “full and estimated cycles” 167
Figure 6.50 – Damage index for “half cycles” 167
Figure 6.51 – Damage index for “full and estimated cycles” 168
Figure 6.52 – Hysteretic damping ratio versus displacement ductility for
“half cycles” 169
Figure 6.53 – Comparison of the load-displacement response envelopes between
CFT reference specimen and HP-FRC column specimen 170
Figure 6.54 – Comparison of the moment-curvature responses of the zone E
between CFT reference specimen and HP-FRC column specimen 171
Figure 6.55 – Comparison of the moment-curvature responses of the zone F
Figure 6.56 – Comparison of the moment-curvature responses of the zone G
Figure 6.57 – Comparison of the stiffness degradation between
Figure 6.58 – Comparison of the energy dissipation between
Figure 6.59 – Comparison of the energy dissipation within zone E
Figure 6.60 – Comparison of the energy dissipation within zone F
Figure 6.61 – Comparison of the energy dissipation within zone G
xviii
Figure 6.62 – Comparison of the load-displacement response between
analytical prediction and experimentally obtained data 180
Figure 6.63 – Comparison of the moment-curvature response of zone D
between analytical prediction and experimentally obtained data 181
Figure 6.64 – Comparison of the moment-curvature response of zone E
Figure 6.65 – Comparison of the moment-curvature response of zone F
Figure 6.66 – Comparison of the moment-curvature response of zone G
xix
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Topic Overview
The cost of repair of the structures deteriorated due to earthquake and lack of durability
in many regions of the world and design of earthquake resistant structures created a need
for the development of long-lasting and cost-effective structural solutions. To address
these issues a novel structural system with adequate constructability and seismic
resistance using High-Performance Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites
(HPFRCCs) are being developed. Research presented in this thesis is part of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) project on the development of novel, High Performance
Composite Frame Systems designed through selective use of High Performance Fiber
Reinforced Concretes (HP-FRCs). The main objective of this NSF-funded project is to
reconsider existing procedures for design, detailing and construction of reinforced
concrete frames and develop novel composite structures that exhibit high strength,
seismic resistance, ductility, and durability. In addition, development of cost-effective
and faster construction process is important because advanced composites are more
costly than conventional materials.
Such a composite frame, termed herein High-Performance Composite Frame (HPCF), is

made by selectively using Slurry Infiltrated Mat Concrete (SIMCON), Slurry Infiltrated
Fiber Concrete (SIFCON), and High Strength - Lightweight Aggregate Fiber Reinforced
Concrete (HS-LWA FRC). No conventional concrete materials are used. HPCF consists
of three main elements: (1) a composite beam member made with a precast SIMCON
“jacket” and cast-in-place HS-LWA FRC core, (2) a composite Concrete Filled Tube
(CFT) column member filled with HS-LWA FRC, and (3) a precast SIFCON “fuse”.
Figure 1.1 shows the main members of the HPFC in beam-column sub-assemblage.
1
This thesis presents the development and testing of an integral part of this novel approach
to earthquake resistant structures. The entire project considers two types of column
member: (1) HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube column and (2) SIMCON jacketed HS-LWA
FRC filled steel tube column which is focus of this thesis. Further in this thesis SIMCON
jacketed HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube column is called High Performance Fiber
Reinforced Concrete (HP-FRC) column specimen. HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube
column served as a reference column specimen and further in this thesis it is called
Concrete Filled Tube (CFT) reference specimen. A brief summary of all HPCF members
is presented next.
Beam Column Steel tube

section section
SIMCON
16"
Fuse Central beam

10" 16" region region
26"
Precast SIFCON SIMCON

Doubler plate
Cast-in-place
HS-LWA FRC
Cast-in-place
HS-LWA FRC
Figure 1.1 – Beam-column sub-assemblage of the HPFC
1.1.1 Column Member
HS-LWA concrete is ideally suited for column members if it is adequately confined

(Shah and Ahmad, 1994; El-Dash and Ahmad 1999; El-Dash, 1995). HS-LWA concrete
was encased in a steel tube, as shown in Figure 1.2, and fibers were added to the HS-
2
LWA concrete to maximize confinement, column strength and ductility while at the same
time eliminating reinforcement congestion. SIMCON column jacket, shown in Figure
1.3, was used to further improve seismic behavior of the column member, as well as
increase its fire resistance and durability. Primary purpose of the SIMCON jacket was to
provide additional energy dissipation under extreme earthquake loading. Due to the fiber
mat feature of SIMCON, used and deteriorated SIMCON jacket can be relatively easily
replaced after the end of seismic loading.
STEEL TUBE
3/8" THK (A 53)
3/8" SHEAR STUDS
(SAE J429)
HS-LWA FRC core

(Vf =1.5%)
1243"
Figure 1.2 – Horizontal cross-section of the HS-LWA FRC column member
1'-4"
3 3
8 " 1' "
8
STEEL TUBE
SIMCON Jacket 3/8" THK (A 53)
(Vf =5.0%)
3/8" SHEAR STUDS

(4.6 grade)
HS-LWA FRC Core
(Vf =1.5%)
185" 1'-043" 185"
Figure 1.3 – Horizontal cross-section of the SIMCON jacketed HS-LWA FRC

column member
3
1.1.2 Beam Member
Use of “U” shaped SIMCON jacket in flexural members minimizes or eliminates the
need for flexural reinforcement, eliminates the need for stirrups and it allows
optimization of member dimensions. This is the most economic way of using SIMCON
because stresses are the highest within the outer layer of the beam (Krstulovic-Opara,
Dogan, Uang and Haghayeghi, 1997). SIMCON stay-in-place formwork has high
strength and toughness which permit direct bolting of the connection bolts for the precast
SIFCON fuse and shear studs into the formwork walls, as shown in Figure 1.4. SIMCON
provides not only high strength, but deformation capacity and energy absorption.
Figures 1.5a, 1.5b and 1.6 show beam member which stay-in-place formwork was made
using 6.4 % fiber volume fraction SIMCON that had 2,300 psi (15.9 MPa) and 10,000 psi
(68.9 MPa) average 28-day tensile and compressive strength, respectively. A 2.0 % fiber
volume fraction HS-LWA FRC was poured into the beam core. At the time of beam test
the average 21-day compressive strength of HS-LWA FRC was 11,700 psi (80.7 MPa).
The beam member was first tested under the cantilever type reverse-cyclic loading, as
shown in Figures 1.7 and 1.8, up to the yield point when the undamaged portion of the
beam was tested under the three-point monotonic loading, which test set-up is shown in
Figure 1.9. Despite the critical shear span to beam depth ratio of 2.0, the beam member
exhibited a stable flexural response and reached the peak load of 151,600 lb (674 kN)
(Ply, 2000). The second test was conducted under shear critical loading conditions and
the beam member demonstrated high shear resistance even though no shear
reinforcement was used. Also, the composite member exhibited a ductile flexural
response (Ply, 2000). The moment-curvature response of the critical beam region is
presented in Figure 1.10.
4
Figure 1.4 – SIMCON stay-in-place formwork
Shear
Stud FRC
1" Typ. 2" Typ.
1 1/2" Typ.
T&B
3 1/4" Typ. 1'-4" SIMCON
Layer
3 1/4" Typ.
2 #5 Rebars
per Layer 2"
5"
1 1/4" Typ.
Figure 1.5a – Cross-section of the beam member near connection region
5
FRC
1" Typ. 2" Typ.

Shear
Stud
1'-4" SIMCON
6 1/2" Typ. Layer
2 #5 Rebars
per Layer 2"
1 1/4" Typ. 5"
Figure 1.5b – Cross-section of the beam member outside end region
8" Typ.
Rebar HS-LWA
FRC
1'-4"
3 1/4" Typ.
SIMCON
1'-2" 4" Typ. Shear Layer
1'-3" Stud
6'-2"
7'
Shear
8" Typ. Stud
Rebar HS-LWA
FRC
3 1/4" Typ.
SIMCON
1'-2" 4" Typ.
Layer
6'-2"
7'
Figure 1.6 – Longitudinal sections of the beam member
6
Figure 1.7 – Beam cantilever type reverse-cyclic test set-up
Figure 1.8 – Reverse-cyclic test set-up for the beam member
7
Figure 1.9 – Three-point monotonic test set-up for the beam member
ZONE 3
2000000 Analytical
Prediction
Moment [lb-in]
1000000
0 Maximum Moment
to be Experienced
Experimental
-1000000
-2000000
-0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001

Curvature [1/in.]
Figure 1.10 – Moment-curvature response of the critical beam region (Ply, 2000)
8
1.1.3 SIFCON Fuse
SIFCON fuse provides an energy “sink” by forming a plastic hinge under severe seismic
excitations and it maintains high strength and energy absorption (Naaman, Wight and
Abdou, 1987; Abdou, Naaman and Wight, 1988; Soubra, Wight and Naaman, 1992;
Vasconez, Naaman and Wight, 1997). Naaman, Wight and collaborators developed cast-
in-place SIFCON fuses to connect precast beam and column members, while the
SIFCON fuses used in this research were precast. Precast SIFCON fuses increase the
speed of the construction process, permit replacement of damaged fuse after the
experiencing a severe loading and permit the use of a more optimal reinforcement layout.
SIFCON fuse formwork molds were filled to capacity with randomly oriented steel
fibers, as shown in Figure 1.11, and the resulting fiber network was infiltrated by cement
based slurry. Precast SIFCON fuses were designed in the way that they could be bolted
in-situ to other precast members. Figure 1.12 shows the test set-up for SIFCON fuse
specimen. Typical cross section of SIFCON fuse specimen tested under static-reverse
cyclic loading is shown in Figure 1.13. Such specimens were designed to exhibit required
yielding moment and ductility by micromechanically “engineering” (Naaman and
Homrich, 1989). As a part of this NSF project, the effect of different reinforcement
layouts and stress-strain properties, as well as different strength and ductilities of the
SIFCON on fuse behavior were evaluated and optimized (Wood, 2000). The
representative moment-curvature response of the SIFCON fuse obtained in this research
is presented in Figure 1.14.
Figure 1.11 – SIFCON fuse formwork mold filled with the fibers
9
Figure 1.12 – Test set-up for SIFCON fuse specimen
30"
10" 5"
1No.6'
2No.5's 2No.6's
16"
A A
Section A-A
30"
15"
10"
Figure 1.13 – Typical cross section of SIFCON fuse specimen
10
Moment Curvature
Specimen H10-9-194, Zones B, C, & D
200
150 Yld Moment
100
Moment (k-ft)
50 Vf = 9.3%
0 fc = 9.75 ksi
-50 My = 148 k-ft
-100 Mu = 184 k-ft
-150 Curvature Ductility = 10.3

-200
-0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015
Curvature
Figure 1.14 – Moment-curvature response of the SIFCON fuse (Wood, 2000)
1.2 CFT Reference Specimen
As mentioned previously, the HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube column served as a
reference column specimen. The geometry of the reference specimen is shown in Figures
1.15 through 1.18 (Punchin, 2001). The CFT reference specimen was manufactured and
tested under static-reversed cyclic loading using a cantilever type set-up (Punchin, 2001),
as shown in Figure 1.19. The behavior and performance of the CFT reference specimen
under pure flexure was evaluated up to the failure. The results obtained from the
reference CFT specimen test are compared to experimental data obtained from the HP-
FRC column specimen test in this thesis.
11
4
LOADING LOADING
PADS AXIS
1'-312"
7"
STEEL TUBE
6'-8"
DOUBLER
TOP OF
PLATE
FOOTING
743"
2'-2"
BASE PLATE
3'
Figure 1.15 – Side view of the CFT reference specimen
STEEL TUBE
3/8" THK (A 53)
(SAE J429)
°
35
HS-LWA FRC Core

(Vf =1.5%)
3
8
"
1243"
Figure 1.16 – Horizontal section of the CFT reference specimen above the doubler plate
12
STEEL TUBE
3/8" THK (A 53)
3/16"
3/8" SHEAR STUDS
(SAE J429)
°
35
60° DOUBLER PLATE
HS-LWA FRC Core
1/4" THK (A 36)
(Vf =1.5%)
3
8
"
1243"
Figure 1.17 – Horizontal section of the CFT reference specimen through the doubler
plates
1'-34"
912"
10 x 72"
7'-343"
1
10'-112"
D D
3" 62"
1
112"
1" 2'-1" 74"

3
3'
Figure 1.18 – Vertical section of the CFT reference specimen
13
1'-312"
REACTION WALL
ACTUATOR
CFT SPECIMEN
6'-8"
2'-10"
FOOTING
Figure 1.19 – Test layout
1.3 Research Objectives
Main objectives of this investigation were:

1) Development, testing and evaluation of the behavior of SIMCON jacketed HS-
LWA FRC filled steel tube column, and
2) Comparison of SIMCON jacketed HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube column
behavior and performance to CFT reference specimen.
1.4 Research Methods
Experimental testing and analytical study were main research methods used in this
investigation. Trial samples of material used in this investigation were first manufactured
and then tested. Material characteristics of trial samples were studied before materials for
the HP-FRC column specimen were manufactured. The column was tested under
simulated seismic load and its behavior and performance were then studied using
analytical procedures.
14
1.5 Scope
The SIMCON jacketed HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube column was manufactured and
tested under static-reversed cyclic loading. A cantilever type setup was used in this
investigation. Properties of the materials used in the manufacturing process of the column
specimen were examined. Seismic behavior and performance of the column specimen
under pure bending were evaluated up to the failure and compared to CFT reference
specimen behavior. The specimen was tested up to the failure to examine the inelastic
and post-peak response of the column.
15
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 Background on Concrete Filled Tubular Members
Concrete filled steel tubes (CFTs) have been utilized as columns in numerous
applications, such as for supporting platforms in offshore structures or the roofs of
storage tanks, bridge piers, piles, and earthquake-resistant structures (Kilpatrick and
Rangan, 1999). The first recorded use of CFT columns was by Sewell in 1901 (Gardner
and Jacobson, 1967), who filled steel box tubes with concrete to prevent internal rusting.
When columns were accidentally overloaded, an increase in stiffness of at least 25% was
noted.
While concrete was primarily used in most of these CFT applications, steel tubes filled
with FRC were used in a 197 ft (60 m) span spaced truss bridge recently built in Quebec,
Canada (Dallaire, Aïtcin and Lachemi, 1998). In this case, high-performance, steel fiber
reinforced reactive powder concrete (FR-RPC) was pressed into steel tubes, which were
then used as diagonal members of the truss bridge. The compressive strength of the
confined and pressed FR-RPC reached 54,400 psi (375 MPa). Some other special types
of CFTs include:
1) a unique hybrid CFT consisting of a hollow concrete core encased inside steel
tube, which is circumferentially prestressed using steel wire and later, covered by
mortar (Palbøl, Jakobsen and Thaulow, 1998), and
2) double skin composite CFTs in which case concrete is confined between two
tubular steel sections (Narayan, 1987; Wei, Mau, Vipulanandan and Mantrala,
1995).
Construction advantage of CFTs is that the steel tube acts both as a permanent formwork,
and provides well-distributed lateral reinforcement (Kilpatrick and Rangan, 1999;
Furlong, 1968; Gardner and Jacobson, 1967; Prion and Boehme, 1994). This simplifies
and increases the speed of construction, while it also improves structural performance of
16
the member. Structural advantage of CFTs is that their composite strength is larger than
the sum of the individual load capacities of the steel tube and the concrete core
(Kilpatrick and Rangan, 1999). The reason for such improved behavior is the fact that the
concrete core supports the steel tube and prevents its premature buckling. This increases
load capacity of the tube and/or permits the use of thinner wall tubes, in which case
yielding strength is reached before local buckling (Lu and Kennedy, 1992; Wei, Mau,
Vipulanandan and Mantrala, 1995). At the same time, the steel tube confines the concrete
laterally, thus increasing its load capacity and ductility by creating a tri-axial compressive
state of concrete stress. As a result, filling the steel tube with concrete increases its (a)
bending strength by about 10 to 30%, (b) initial flexural stiffness and (c) ductility,
without significantly increasing member cost or size (Lu and Kennedy, 1992). Actually,
because of their high compressive load-bearing capacity, CFT columns usually have
smaller areas than comparable reinforced concrete columns (Liu and Zhong, 2000).
Due to the large shear capacity of concrete filled steel tubular members, CFTs usually fail
in ductile flexure (Tomii and Sakino, 1979). Finally, these systems are well suited for
precast construction, where closed shop control of concrete casting permits the use of
high strength concrete or expansive cement, which enhances the level of confinement and
provides chemical prestressed elements (Furlong, 1967; Bertero and Moustafa, 1970).
However, a number of challenges accompany use of CFTs, such as low fire and corrosion
resistance, as well as high cost of floor to column connections.
2.2 Interaction between Concrete and Steel – Onset of Confinement
When a concrete filled circular steel tube is loaded in compression so that the load is
applied to both steel and concrete, the steel tube has no confining effect up to the axial
strain level of 0.001 (Furlong, 1967). This is the result of difference in Poisson’s ratio
between concrete core and steel tube (since Poisson’s ratio of concrete is lower it expands
17
less than steel). With further loading, concrete microcracking increases and Poisson’s
ratio becomes as high as 0.6. As the result, the lateral expansion of unconfined concrete
approaches that of steel, and eventually a radial pressure develops at the thereby
restraining the concrete core and setting up hoop tension in the tube. Normally, after the
unconfined cylinder strength is attained, concrete would tend to spall and disintegrate in
absence of the confining jacket. However, if the jacket buckles before strains are large
enough to develop the unconfined cylinder strength, the full strength of concrete cannot
be utilized. It was reported that concrete begins to increase in volume at a strain level of
about 0.002 and confinement is activated at stress level of 95% of the concrete strength
(Knowles and Park, 1969; Prion and Boehme, 1994). At this stage, the concrete is
stressed tri-axially and the tube bi-axially. The interaction between the tube and the core
results in synergistic effect where the capacity of the composite column exceeds the sum
of the individual strengths of steel and concrete (Kilpatrick and Rangan, 1999).
Prion and Boehme reported that the confining level is higher if the axial load is applied to
the concrete only, as the steel shell will not expand laterally and keep in contact with
concrete. However, in practice bond stresses and friction cause longitudinal strain in
steel, which also reduces the yield strength in both directions (Prion and Boehme, 1994).
2.3 Parameters Affecting CFT Behavior
Key parameters affecting the performance of concrete filled tubes are bond, cross-section
shape, slenderness (L/D), aspect ratio (D/t), concrete compressive strength, steel yield
strength and axial loading. For instance, the most effective CFTs are those made with
circular tube sections. Circular steel sections provide the best confinement as well as
more uniform flexural strength and stiffness in all directions. Confinement effectiveness
is decreased if (a) rectangular or square tubes are used, (b) high strength concrete is
selected, (c) column slenderness is increased, or (d) the column is loaded in pure flexure.
(Furlong, 1967; Kennedy and MacGregor, 1984; Schneider, 1998; Kilpatrick and
18
Rangan, 1999; Knowles and Park, 1969; Prion and Boehme, 1994; Barber, Kennedy and
MacGregor, 1987). The effect of these parameters is discussed in detail in the following
sections.
2.3.1 Effect of Bond
Stress transfer between the steel and concrete can take place through (a) frictional bond,
(b) chemical bond, or (b) mechanical means such as shear connectors. Bond can be
further improved during bending, in which case member curvature can provide additional
confining pressure that improves shear transfer.
It should be pointed out that there is not a general agreement regarding the importance of
bond on CFT behavior. Many authors report that bond appears to have no significant
effect on the CFT response. Hajjar et al. (Hajjar, Schiller and Molodan, 1998) have
reported that bond has little effect on either the global behavior of a composite CFT
frame, or on the strength of a member subjected to flexure. Ricles et al. (Ricles et al.,
1997) found that under cycling loading capacity is not significantly increased if shear
studs are added to the outside surface of flanges. Shakir-Khalil reports that changing the
interface length does not have a direct and proportional effect on the load-carrying
capacity of CFTs subjected to push-out loading (Shakir-Khalil, 1992). Okamoto
(Okamoto, 1991) reports that the bond has no significant effect on the flexural capacity of
the column. Instead, the flexural capacity can only be increased by increasing the axial
load (Okamoto, 1991). Similarly, Kilpatrick and Rangan report that bond has no
significant effect on load capacity of eccentrically loaded short and long columns
(Kilpatrick and Rangan, 1999).
Furthermore, lack of bond not only seems to have no detrimental effect, but can actually
be beneficial, in which case column ductility might be increased (Viest et al., 1997). In
this case, the neutral axis of the concrete will migrate towards the tension face, thus
delaying tension cracking and allowing more compression force to be resisted by the
19
concrete above the neutral axis. While in this case some flexural resistance may be lost
due to an absence of shear transfer, the improved flexural ductility coupled with an
increased axial capacity of the member outweighs any loss in flexural load capacity
(Viest et al., 1997).
On the other hand, Matamura and Matai report that presence of bond will increase the
flexural capacity (Yoshioka, 1996). Kilpatrick concludes that bond may be a
consideration for stub columns because it appears to influence both the strength of the
column and its load-shortening response (Kilpatrick and Rangan, 1999).
2.3.2 Effect of Cross-Section Shape
Circular CFTs have a uniform lateral confinement around the concrete core, while square
and rectangular CFTs do not provide a uniform distribution of lateral confinement
because the center and corners of these sections experience a higher confining pressure
than its sides. As a result, circular CFTs provide a higher confinement than square or
rectangular CFTs. Increase in confinement leads to an increase in column strength and
ductility. Concrete core of the rectangular and square sections can not carry equivalent
loads as in circular shapes because of the cracks that develop at the corners (Morino et
al., 1992).
2.3.3 Effect of Slenderness (L/D)
Load carrying capacity of a column depends on the length to width ratio (L/D). For
square columns the limiting slenderness value is 7, while for circular columns, where D is
column diameter, the L/D ratio is 10 (Shams, 1997). The column strength bent into single
curvature reduces with an increase in column slenderness. The level of load carrying
capacity reduction is more significant in longer columns, while the degree of reduction
for shorter columns is constant. Columns with lower L/D ratio have greater load carrying
20
capacity than more slender columns, but they shed load much faster once softening
occurs. This leads to decreased column ductility (Kilpatrick and Rangan, 1999).
Some tests showed that composite action can be achieved only in columns with
slenderness less than 50 (Roeder et al., 1999). However, results from other tests showed
that even longer columns can develop composite action. Long cylindrical concrete filled
tubes developed a flexural stiffness greater than the sum of steel and uncoupled concrete
stiffness, thus indicating the existence of the composite action between concrete and steel
tube (Shams and Saadeghaziri, 1997).
2.3.4 Effect of Aspect Ratio (D/t)
Aspect ratio of a CFT affects a number of parameters. Wall thickness, t, controls the local
buckling of the steel tube. Local buckling of the steel tube can occur before the concrete
reaches its maximum compressive capacity if the aspect ratio is too large. Previous
research established the limiting values for the aspect ratio, 73 for square and 95 for
circular columns (Shams, 1997). Also, investigations on CFTs showed that bond stress
capacity is reduced by increasing the diameter and aspect ratio, i.e., proportionately
thinning the tube (Roeder, 1999). Tests conducted on steel reinforce concrete showed that
ultimate strength and post elastic deformation behavior are hardly influenced by their
aspect ratio (Zhang and Yamada, 1992).
Aspect ratio affects the compressive strength of the concrete core because for thicker
tubes, where the aspect ratio is smaller, the confining effect is bigger and concrete
strength increases. The increase in confined compressive strength for square columns is
significant when the aspect ratio decreases from 100 to 25. For aspect ratios of less than
20, the confined compressive strength increases at a lower rate and remains almost
constant. The confined compressive strength for circular column increases at a lower rate
as the aspect ratio decreases. The increase in the confinement is more significant in the
circular columns than square columns as the wall thickness increases (Shams, 1997).
21
2.3.5 Effect of Concrete Compressive Strength
Concrete is a relatively brittle material in compression. Increasing the compressive

strength of concrete, it fails in more brittle manner. Ductility of the CFT is affected by the
compressive strength of concrete and it decreases with the use of high-strength concrete.
Previous investigations showed that bond stress capacity is not related to the strength of
the concrete (Roeder et al., 1999). Experiments showed that confinement ratio, using the
same aspect ratio, for higher strength concrete is less than lower strength concrete. The
concrete stiffness increases with the increase in compressive strength increases, which
leads to less lateral expansion and concrete core experiences less confining pressure.
2.3.6 Effect of Steel Yield Strength
Investigations demonstrated that normal yield stress of the steel tube does not affect the
maximum compressive capacity of the concrete core (Shams, 1997), but it affects the
overall strength of CFTs. Higher yield stresses lead to stronger CFTs because the steel
tube is able to confine the concrete core over larger loads and deformations. At a concrete
compressive strain of 0.003 (the concrete strain at which the full capacity is assumed to
be developed according to ACI Code), a large portion of normal-strength tube yields,
while only the outermost fibers in a high-strength tube are expected to yield (Zhang and
Shahrooz, 1999). However, the increase in steel yield strength results in decreased
ductility. Wall thickness, t, and slenderness (L/D) ratio mostly affect the maximum stress
that the steel tube in CFT can sustain. The decrease in steel tube yield stress compared to
its normal yield stress is more significant in columns with higher aspect ratio and
decreases to 85 % of the normal yield stress (Shams, 1997).
2.3.7 Effect of Axial Load
An increase in axial compressive load increases flexural capacity of the column up to a

certain point when flexural capacity starts to decrease. Usually in practice, most of the
22
columns are axially loaded such that axial load increases flexural capacity. On the other
hand, an increase in axial load decreases ductility in conventionally reinforced concrete
columns. Recent experiments indicated that conventionally reinforced concrete column
confined with the steel tube and subjected to high axial load, significantly improved its
strength, stiffness and ductility (Aboutaha and Machado, 1999).
23
3 MATERIALS
The manufacturing procedure and behavior of materials that were used in manufacturing
of the entire HP-FRC column specimen are described in the following chapters. The
emphasis is put on those material properties that have the biggest effect the behavior of
the entire HP-FRC column specimen.
3.1 Steel
The same type and grade of the steel tube was used in both reference and HP-FRC
specimen. The steel tube used in the column specimen manufacturing, A 53 Grade B,
supplied by Apex Steel Corporation (Apex, North Carolina) was 12.75 in (324 mm) in
diameter and 0.375 in (9.5 mm) thick.
3.1.1 Material Behavior
The minimum yield strength of the A 53 Grade B steel tube according to ASTM A 53/A
53M is fy = 48.0 ksi (331 MPa) and minimum ultimate strength is fu = 60.0 ksi (414
MPa). Four steel coupons were tested in order to determine the actual values of the
modulus of elasticity, first yield strength, yield strength, yield strain and ultimate strength
of the steel tube. Longitudinal strip tension tests were conducted according to ASTM A
370 – 97a and ASTM E 8 – 00b. All the mechanical properties of the steel were evaluated
from the stress-strain response of these steel specimens. Two types of the longitudinal
strip specimens were tested: one specimen was 0.5 in (12.7 mm) wide (Figures 3.1 and
3.2) and other three specimens were 1.5 in (38.1 mm) wide (Figures 3.1 and 3.3). The
gage length of both the specimens was 2.0 in (50.8 mm).
24
Figure 3.1 – Geometry of the 0.5 in and 1.5 in wide longitudinal strip specimens
Figure 3.2 – 0.5 in wide longitudinal strip specimen
Figure 3.3 – Broken 1.5 in wide longitudinal strip specimen
25
3.1.1.1 Instrumentation
Tension tests were carried out using MTS 647 hydraulic wedge grip, model 647.100 and
MTS load frame (Figure 3.4). The tests were conducted under the displacement control
using MTS 810 material test system and MTS controller #442. The force capacity of the
machine is 264 kip (1200 kN) and all the data were recorded by OPTIM MEGADAC
3415 AC data acquisition system. The complete test set-up, shown in Figure 3.5, included
one potentiometer and one MTS axial extensometer, model number 634.25E-24. The
gage length of the extensometer was 2.0 in (50.8 mm). The potentiometer was attached to
the fixed part of the load frame. To protect the extensometer from the potential damage
due to the specimen failure, the test was paused prior to specimen failure during which
time the extensometer was removed. The speed of testing was defined as a rate of
separation of wedge heads during the test. Tests of 0.5 in and 1.5 in wide specimens were
conducted at the speed of 0.0667 in/in/min and 0.0267 in/in/min, respectively. During the
testing the measured ambient temperature was 70° F.
Figure 3.4 – MTS 647 hydraulic wedge grip and MTS load frame
26
Figure 3.5 – Test set-up for the longitudinal strip tension test
3.1.1.2 Modulus of Elasticity
The modulus of elasticity was defined as the slope of the line extrapolated from the origin
of the stress-strain response through first yield (f’y, ε’y). Measured moduli of elasticity,
determined from the stress-strain relationship are presented in Table 3.1. The average
value of the static modulus of elasticity was 27,800 ksi (191,400 MPa).
specimen #1 #2 #3 #4
[mm] 50.80 50.80 50.80 50.80
gage length
[in] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
[mm] 12.73 38.05 38.13 38.10
gage width
[in] 0.501 1.498 1.501 1.500
[mm] 9.42 9.47 9.42 9.47
thickness
[in] 0.371 0.373 0.371 0.373
2
[cm ] 119.92 360.49 359.27 360.97
cross-sectional area 2
[in ] 0.186 0.559 0.557 0.560
[MPa] 202602 202161 159979 200830
Young's modulus
[ksi] 29385 29321 23203 29128
Table 3.1 – Modulus of elasticity of the steel specimens
27
3.1.1.3 Tension
The yield strength was determined from the stress-strain response of the tested specimen
using the offset method (0.2 %), as shown in Figure 3.6. The test results for each
specimen are shown in Table 3.2. The average yield strength and ultimate tensile strength
of the longitudinal strip steel specimens were 49.2 ksi (339 MPa) and 63.5 ksi (438 MPa),
respectively. The results obtained from the conducted tests are slightly greater than the
minimum specified values according to ASTM A 53/A 53M. The yield strain was defined
as the strain found by extrapolating the line from the origin of the stress-strain response
through first yield (f’y, ε’y) to the yield strength, fy. Thus, the yield strain was evaluated
from the following equation:
εy = fy / E
The average value of the yield strain was 0.00178 in/in. The stress-strain curves, shown
in Figure 3.7, show the ductile response of the material.
Yield strength and yield strain
60000
50000
fy
40000
stress [psi]
30000
f'y
20000
10000
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.020
εy strain [in/in]
Figure 3.6 – Offset method for evaluating the yield strength and yield strain
28
specimen #1 #2 #3 #4
[mm] 50.80 50.80 50.80 50.80
gage length
[in] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
[mm] 12.73 38.05 38.13 38.10
gage width
[in] 0.501 1.498 1.501 1.500
[mm] 9.42 9.47 9.42 9.47
thickness
[in] 0.371 0.373 0.371 0.373
2
[cm ] 119.92 360.49 359.27 360.97
[in ] 0.186 0.559 0.557 0.560
[in/s] 0.0025 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010
rate of loading
[in/in/min] 0.0667 0.0267 0.0267 0.0267
[MPa] 287 154 175 249
first yield strength
[ksi] 41.6 22.3 25.4 36.1
[MPa] 378 318 311 351
yield strength
[ksi] 54.8 46.2 45.1 50.9
[MPa] 449 418 420 463
tensile strength
[ksi] 65.2 60.7 60.9 67.1
yield strain [in/in] 0.00187 0.00158 0.00194 0.00175
Table 3.2 – Yield strength, ultimate tensile strength and yield strain of the steel coupons
Stress-strain curves
longitudinal strip steel specimens - A 53 Grade B
80000
70000
60000
50000
#1 (0.5 in wide)
stress [psi]
#2 (1.5 in wide)
40000
#3 (1.5 in wide)
#4 (1.5 in wide)
30000
20000
10000
0
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
strain [in/in]
Figure 3.7 – Stress-strain curves for the longitudinal strip specimens (A 53 Grade B)
29
From the Figure 3.8 can be observed that the specimen #1 exhibited expected elongation
before the failure.
Figure 3.8 – Failure of the longitudinal strip specimens (A 53 Grade B)
3.2 High Strength Light-Weight Aggregate Fiber Reinforced Concrete
The same high strength light-weight aggregate fiber reinforced concrete (HS-LWA FRC)
was used in both reference and HP-FRC specimen but due to the different manufacturing
conditions the mechanical properties are slightly different.
3.2.1 Manufacturing Procedure
The mix proportions of HS-LWA FRC components used in this research were
1.00/0.19/1.00/1.15/0.32/0.022/0.22 by weight of Portland cement Type III, water added
to the mix, 3/8” Stalite light-weight aggregate, sand, Microsilica Slurry 970S1, AVDA
1
Microsilica Slurry 970S produced by Elkem Materials, Inc. consists of 50% solid silica fume and 50%
water.
30
100 Superplasticizer and 30/50 hooked Dramix fibers, respectively (Table 3.3). Total
water2 proportion by weight of Portland cement Type III was 0.35. The total water to
cementitious material3 ratio was 0.30. The volume fraction of the hooked Dramix fibers
was 1.5%. The length to diameter ratio of the 30/50 hooked Dramix fibers, shown in
Figure 3.9, is 60 where length and an equivalent diameter of the fibers are 1.18 in (30
mm) and 0.02 in (0.5 mm), respectively. The specified tensile yield stress of a fiber is
170,000 psi (1,170 MPa). The weight proportions of the aggregate and sand are based on
the surface saturated dry (SSD) condition. The moisture content of the material was
accounted when measuring the weights for the mix. The moisture content of the
aggregate and sand was determined by drying the material in the oven at 110° C
following ASTM C 566 – 89 specifications (Table 3.4). Before measuring the weight of
the Microsilica Slurry 970S, the slurry was premixed because, when stored, solid silica
fume particles settle at the bottom of the container.
Figure 3.9 – 30/50 hooked Dramix fibers
2
Total water is defined as the water directly added during mixing together with the water already present in
Microsilica Slurry 970S as well as the moisture contained in the sand and aggregate.
3
The cementitious material is considered cement and dry portion of Microsilica Slurry 970S.
31
Portland 3/8" Stalite 30/50 hooked
water added Microsilica
cement lightweight sand AVDA 100 Dramix
to the mix Slurry 970S
Type III aggregate fibers
Wi / Wc 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.15 0.32 0.022 0.22
γi / γw 3.15 1.00 1.60 2.64 1.35 1.06 7.85
Table 3.3 – Proportions of HS-LWA FRC components
3/8" Stalite lightweight

sand
aggregate
mass of original sample [g] 1511.9 552.6
mass of dried sample [g] 1504.3 550.2
moisture content of sample [%] 0.5 0.4
Table 3.4 – Moisture content of the aggregate and sand
Portland 3/8" Stalite 30/50 hooked

water added Microsilica
cement lightweight sand* AVDA 100 Dramix
to the mix* Slurry 970S
Type III aggregate* fibers
3
γi [lbs/ft ] 196.56 62.40 99.84 164.74 84.24 66.14 489.84
Wi [lbs] 25.25 4.55 25.37 29.15 8.08 0.56 5.51
* - weight of original sample (moisture content is included)
Table 3.5 – Weights of the components per 0.75 ft3 of the HS-LWA FRC
Weights of the HS-LWA FRC components based on the mix proportions and mixture
volume of 0.75 ft3 (0.021 m3) are presented in Table 3.5. All the material was measured
and stored in the buckets before the mixing, as shown in Figure 3.10. HS-LWA FRC was
mixed on February 26th, 2001 and the relative air humidity in the room on that day was
57 %. The manufacturing procedure was performed using Zyklos ZZ 75 HE mixer
32
(Figure 3.11). Carefully optimized steps were followed to achieve the optimal mix,
workability and strength of the HS-LWA FRC:
• The mixer pan and blades were wetted to prevent the mix from sticking to the pan
surface and blades.
• 3/8” Stalite lightweight aggregate and sand were “dry-mixed” to achieve uniform
mixture for approximately two minutes.
• While the mixer was running, ¾ of the water amount was added.
• Next step was the addition of 30/50 hooked Dramix fibers. Fibers were added
slowly during mixing to prevent lumping. Mixing continued for three minutes
when sand and aggregate were saturated and a uniform distribution of fibers was
achieved.
• One half of the superplasticizer was added followed by the gradual addition of the
entire amount of cement. One half of the superplasticizer was added first because
it eliminates cement lumping, which otherwise happens as soon as cement is
added to the mix.
• Microsilica slurry 970S and the remaining ¼ of water amount were added next
and mixing continued for another two minutes.
• The remainder of the superplasticizer was added and after another two minutes of
mixing the mix was ready for casting.
The entire manufacturing process of making one batch (0.75 ft3) of the HS-LWA FRC
lasted for approximately 12 minutes. The workable concrete volume of the pan mixer was
2.65 ft3 (75 liters or 0.075 m3). However, because of the lower workability of the fiber
reinforced concrete, only 0.75 ft3 (0.021 m3) were mixed in each batch to provide
uniform mixing and prevent lumping.
33
Figure 3.10 – Buckets of the measured material
Figure 3.11 – Zyklos ZZ 75 HE mixer
34
A small part of each batch was used for the cylinder manufacturing. A small vibrating rod
was used to reduce the amount of air voids in the mix while placing it in the plastic
cylinder molds (Figure 3.12). After two days the cylinder specimens were demolded and
placed in the water for moist-curing (Figure 3.13). After two weeks, both ends of the
specimens were polished using Piccinotti polishing machine, model Esacta. Using a
cooling agent and very sharp blades, as shown in Figure 3.14, the machine creates an
extremely smooth and flat surface. This is especially important during the axial
compression test because the load from the test machine should be uniformly transferred
over the entire contact area between the cylinder and machine plates. The cylinders were
removed from the water two days before the testing.
Figure 3.12 – Plastic cylinder molds
35
Figure 3.13 – Moist-curing of the cylindrical specimens
Figure 3.14 – Smoothening of the HS-LWA FRC specimens
36
Material response was evaluated at the different time using standard 4 in x 8 in (10.2 cm
x 20.3 cm) cylinders.
Tests were carried out using two hydraulic machines, Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton (BLH)
and Forney Fortec RT-1 machine (Figure 3.15). The latter one is load-controlled machine
and it was used to conduct compressive strength tests, splitting tensile strength tests and
obtain static modulus of elasticity using a compressometer.
Figure 3.15 – Forney Fortec RT-1 machine
BLH Machine
The load capacity of the BLH machine is 1,000 kip. The compressive strength tests were
conducted under the displacement control using MTS controller #406 (Figure 3.16). The
37
advantage of the displacement-controlled test is that they permit measurement of the
entire stress-strain behavior of the tested specimen. Data were recorded using OPTIM
MEGADAC data acquisition system. The test set-up, shown on Figures 3.17 and 3.18,
included three potentiometers and one linear voltage differential transformer (LVDT).
Three potentiometers placed around the cylinders specimen at 120° measured
longitudinal strains while the LVDT measured lateral strains at the mid height of the
specimen. The potentiometers were attached to the fixed top plate of the machine. Thus,
the compressive strength, strain at the compressive strength, strain at the specimen
failure, elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio were obtained from the entire stress-strain
relationship. Also, the volumetric strains were obtained using data from both
potentiometers and LVDT.
Figure 3.16 – Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton machine and MTS controller #406
38
Figure 3.17 – Test set-up for the compression test
SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW
Potentiometers
h/2
7.36"
d/2
d/2
9.34"
h/2
d LVDT
Figure 3.18 – Geometry of the test set-up for the compression test
The displacement and load output from the MTS controller #406 were 1,803 mV/in (71
mV/mm) and 48.5 mV/kip (10.9 mV/kN), respectively. To satisfy the rate of loading
required by ASTM C 39 – 94, the ramp rate and rate range were set on the MTS
controller. It was noticed that there was a difference between the recorded data from the
machine displacement and displacements of the potentiometers. To compare and check
the calibration of the machine and potentiometers several tests were done without loading
39
the specimen, just moving the lower plate of the machine. These tests were conducted at
the different loading rate by changing the ramp rate and rate range. Figures 3.19 and 3.20
show that the rates of loading evaluated from the machine and potentiometers match very
well. Also, Table 3.6 shows that ratios between different inputs (ramp rate and rate range)
match very well with the machine output. Then, the tests were conducted by loading the
specimen at the different loading rates. Figures 3.21 and 3.22 show that the loading rates
evaluated from the machine and potentiometers are very different and they don’t match
with the input loading rate at all. Thus, it was concluded that the rate of loading was not
constant because it is controlled by the hydraulic machine. Also, it was shown that the
rate of loading was changing by the deterioration of the specimen. Trial loadings were
conducted to determine the loading rate that will be inside the limits that corresponds to
the required loading rate. Therefore, the compressive strength tests were conducted at the
average loading rate of 0.000085 in/s (0.0022 mm/s) which is approximately equivalent
to 45 psi/s (310 kPa/s).
Calibration 2
ramp rate 27.0%/s; rate range 0.1%/s
0.300000
0.250000
0.200000
displacement [in]
BLH
0.150000
pots
0.100000
0.050000
0.000000
0 50 100 150 200 250
time [s]
Figure 3.19 – Comparison of loading rates (no load applied) - “calibration 2”
40
Calibration 4
0.250000
0.200000
displacement [in]
0.150000
BLH
pots
0.100000
0.050000
0.000000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
time [s]
Figure 3.20 – Comparison of loading rates (no load applied) - “calibration 4”
INPUT
calib 1 calib 2 calib 3 calib 4 calib 5
calib 1 / 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.200
calib 2 10.000 / 1.000 2.000 2.000
calib 3 10.000 1.000 / 2.000 2.000
calib 4 5.000 0.500 0.500 / 1.000
calib 5 5.000 0.500 0.500 1.000 /
OUTPUT
calib 1 calib 2 calib 3 calib 4 calib 5
calib 1 / 0.099 0.102 0.197 0.198
calib 2 10.114 / 1.031 1.994 2.006
calib 3 9.813 0.970 / 1.934 1.947
calib 4 5.073 0.502 0.517 / 1.006
calib 5 5.041 0.498 0.514 0.994 /
Table 3.6 – Comparison of the loading rates (calibrow/calibcolumn)
41
Loading rate 1
0.035000
0.030000
0.025000
displacement [in]
0.020000 blh - load

pots - load
blh - no load
0.015000 pots - no load
0.010000
0.005000
0.000000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time [s]
Figure 3.21 – Comparison of loading rates - “loading rate 1”
Loading rate 2
0.070000
0.060000
0.050000
0.040000
displacement [in]
blh - load
pots - load
0.030000
blh - no load
pots - no load
0.020000
0.010000
0.000000
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0
-0.010000
time [s]
Figure 3.22 – Comparison of loading rates - “loading rate 2”
42
The modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio were determined according to ASTM C 469
– 94. The results of both the modulus elasticity and Poisson’s ratio are presented in Table
3.7. The average value of the static modulus elasticity of eight 6 months old specimens,
determined from the stress-strain relationship, was 4,800 ksi (33,200 MPa). The average
Poisson’s ratio of the same cylinders was 0.86.
static modulus
specimen test day of elasticity Poisson's ratio # days old
[ksi]
#28 (ZII - B3) 8/15/2001 4643 0.80 170
#34 (ZII - B4) 8/18/2001 4652 0.86 173
#39 (ZII - B2) 8/21/2001 5047 0.93 176
#33 (ZII - B1) 8/22/2001 4582 0.84 177
#18 (ZII - B2) 8/23/2001 4808 0.87 178
#37 (ZII - B3) 8/23/2001 4780 0.87 178
#20 (ZII - B1) 8/24/2001 5253 0.91 179
#32 (ZII - B4) 8/25/2001 4716 0.77 180
Table 3.7 – Modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of the HS-LWA FRC specimens
obtained using BLH machine
The values of the modulus of elasticity were also determined using the Forney machine
and the results are presented in Table 3.8. The average modulus of elasticity was 5,100
ksi (35,400 MPa). The static modulus of elasticity was evaluated by plotting the trendline
obtained from the points that represent recorded load and displacement values for each
cylinder.
43
specimen #16 (ZII - B5) #24 (ZII - B4) #26 (Z II - B1) #27 (ZII - B3)
[mm] 100.84 102.74 100.84 100.84
diameter
[in] 3.97 4.05 3.97 3.97
2
[cm ] 79.86 82.91 79.86 79.86
[in ] 12.38 12.85 12.38 12.38
[lbf/min] 32000 32000 32000 32000
rate of loading
[psi/s] 43 42 43 43
[MPa] 29641 36522 38328 37087
static modulus of elasticity
[ksi] 4299 5297 5559 5379
age of specimen [day] 156 156 156 156
Table 3.8 – Static modulus of elasticity of the HS-LWA FRC specimens obtained using
Forney machine
The values of the static modulus of elasticity obtained from the stress-strain curve are
considered to be more reliable because more accurate equipment was used in these tests.
3.2.2.3 Compression
The compressive strength of the cylindrical HS-LWA FRC specimens was determined
according to ASTM C 39 – 94. The results shown in Table 3.9 were obtained by using
both Forney and BLH machine. The average compressive strength of HS-LWA FRC
specimen was 15,900 psi (109.6 MPa) and the average longitudinal strain at the
compressive strength was 0.00373 in/in. The stress-strain curves (Figures 3.23 and 3.24)
obtained from the compression tests using BLH machine show the ductile response of the
material. Volumetric strain was calculated using the following expression:
εvol = (εx + 2εy) / 3
44
compressive longitudinal strain at
specimen test day strength compressive strength # days old
[psi] [in/in]
#1 (Z III - B1) 3/26/2001 15342 N/A 28
#2 (ZIII - B2) 3/26/2001 15307 N/A 28
#16 (ZII - B5) 8/1/2001 15989 N/A 156
#26 (Z II - B1) 8/1/2001 15550 N/A 156
#27 (ZII - B3) 8/1/2001 15546 N/A 156
#28 (ZII - B3) 8/15/2001 15580 0.00367 170
#34 (ZII - B4) 8/18/2001 16243 0.00370 173
#39 (ZII - B2) 8/21/2001 16561 0.00377 176
#33 (ZII - B1) 8/22/2001 15791 0.00376 177
#18 (ZII - B2) 8/23/2001 16561 0.00378 178
#37 (ZII - B3) 8/23/2001 15480 0.00367 178
#20 (ZII - B1) 8/24/2001 16784 0.00383 179
#32 (ZII - B4) 8/25/2001 15935 0.00365 180
Table 3.9 – Compressive strength and longitudinal strain of the HS-LWA FRC specimens
HS-LWA FRC cylinders
18000
16000
14000
#18 (ZII - B2)
12000 #20 (ZII - B1)
#28 (ZII - B3)
stress [psi]
10000
#32 (ZII - B4)
#33 (ZII - B1)
8000
#34 (ZII - B4)
6000 #37 (ZII - B3)
#39 (ZII - B2)
4000
2000
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.020
strain [in/in]
Figure 3.23 – Stress-strain curves for HS-LWA FRC (longitudinal strain)
45
#33 (ZII - B1) HS-LWA FRC cylinder
18000
16000
14000
12000
stress [psi]
10000 longitudinal strain

transverse strain
8000 volumetric strain
6000
4000
2000
0
-0.080 -0.070 -0.060 -0.050 -0.040 -0.030 -0.020 -0.010 0.000 0.010 0.020
strain [in/in]
Figure 3.24 – Stress-strain curves for HS-LWA FRC (volumetric strain)
Figure 3.25 shows that hooked steel fibers prevented excessive lateral expansion and
breaking apart of the cylinders by holding the matrix together even after significant
cracking developed.
Figure 3.25 – Crushed cylindrical HS-LWA FRC specimen
46
3.2.2.4 Split-Tensile Strength
The splitting tensile strength of the cylindrical HS-LWA FRC specimens was determined
according to ASTM C 496 – 90. Obtained results are presented in Table 3.10. The
average split-tensile strength of HS-LWA FRC specimen was 2,250 psi (15.5 MPa).
specimen 1 2 3 4 5
[mm] 101.35 101.25 101.15 101.28 101.15
diameter
[in] 3.99 3.99 3.98 3.99 3.98
[mm] 198.44 203.20 198.44 200.03 201.61
length
[in] 7.81 8.00 7.81 7.88 7.94
2
[cm ] 80.67 80.52 80.36 80.56 80.36
[in ] 12.50 12.48 12.46 12.49 12.46
[lbf/min] 7000 9000 7000 8400 8400
rate of loading
[psi/min] 143 180 143 170 169
[N] 468242 566592 412524 529365 497921
maximum load
[lbf] 105265 127375 92739 119006 111937
splitting tensile [kPa] 14822 17532 13084 16636 15544
strength [psi] 2150 2543 1898 2413 2254
age of specimen [day] 365 365 365 365 365
type of fracture split split split split split
Table 3.10 – Splitting tensile strength of the HS-LWA FRC specimens
3.3 Slurry Infiltrated Mat Concrete
In this research only SIMCON slurry cylinders were tested. The properties of the
SIMCON cylinder specimens are obtained from the previous experiments (Krstulovic-
Opara and Al-Shannag, 1999).
3.3.1 Manufacturing Procedure
The mix proportions of SIMCON slurry components used in this research were
1.00/0.31/0.60/0.30/0.04 by weight of Portland cement Type III, water added to the mix,
47
#250 Ottawa Silica Sand, Microsilica Slurry 970S4 and AVDA 100 Superplasticizer,
respectively (Table 3.11). Total water5 proportion by weight of Portland cement Type III
was 0.46.
Portland cement water added to #250 Ottawa Microsilica AVDA 100

Type III the mix Silica Sand Slurry 970S Superplasticizer
Wi / Wc 1.00 0.31 0.60 0.30 0.04
γi / γw 3.15 1.00 2.65 1.35 1.06
Table 3.11 – Proportions of SIMCON slurry components
Portland cement water added to #250 Ottawa Microsilica AVDA 100

Type III the mix Silica Sand Slurry 970S Superplasticizer
3
γi [lbs/ft ] 196.56 62.40 165.36 84.24 66.14
Wi [lbs] 71.14 22.05 42.68 21.34 2.85
Table 3.12 – Weights of the components per 1.27 ft3 of the SIMCON slurry
Weights of the SIMCON slurry components based on the mix proportions and mixture
volume of 1.27 ft3 (0.036 m3) are presented in Table 3.12. All the material was measured
and stored in the buckets before mixing. Before measuring the weight of the Microsilica
Slurry 970S, it was mixed because after storage solid silica fume always settles at the
bottom of the bucket. SIMCON slurry was mixed on July 26th, 2000 and the relative air
humidity in the room on that day was 66 %. Both Hobart (Figure 3.26) and colloidal
grout mixer were used for SIMCON slurry mixing. The SIMCON slurry was premixed in
Hobart mixer and then poured in the bigger colloidal mixer to maximize its workability,
uniformity and flowability. Carefully optimized steps were followed to achieve the
optimal mix, workability and strength of the SIMCON slurry:
4
Microsilica Slurry 970S produced by Elkem Materials, Inc. consists of 50% solid silica fume and 50%
water.
5
Total water is defined as the water directly added during mixing together with the water already present in
Microsilica Slurry 970S.
48
• The mixer pan was wetted to prevent the mix from sticking to the pan surface.
• #250 Ottawa silica sand and Portland cement were “dry-mixed” to achieve
uniform mixture for approximately two minutes.
• While the mixer was running, Microsilica slurry 970S and water were added.
• ¼ of the superplasticizer was poured and mixing continued for another three
minutes.
• The entire bowl content was poured into the colloidal mixer.
• The same procedure was repeated for another four bowls and remaining amount
of the superplasticizer was added to the mix. After three minutes, the mix was
ready for the injection of the column jacket and casting the small cylinder molds
for cylinder specimens.
Figure 3.26 – Hobart mixer
A small vibrating rod was used to reduce the amount of air voids in the mix while placing
it in the small plastic cylinder molds. The cylinder specimens were demolded a day after
the mixing and placed in the water for moist-curing. The cylinders were kept in the water
for the same period of time as the SIMCON Jacket was moist-cured with the wet burlap
cloth (approximately 2 months). Cylinders, that were tested before they were 2 months
49
old, were removed from the water two days before the testing. Both ends of the
specimens were smoothened using Piccinotti polishing machine, model Esacta, similarly
to HS-LWA FRC cylinder specimens.
SIMCON is composite material made by infiltration the slurry into the dense fiber
network. Continuous stainless steel fiber mats used in this research were manufactured by
Ribbon Technology Corporation, Gahanna, Ohio. The fiber mats, 0.5 in to 2 in
(1.27x5.08 cm) thick, are manufactured by a direct casting from molten metal using a
chilled wheel concept and by inter-layering of the fibers. In this “filter-like” fiber mat, 60
to 70 % of fibers are aligned in the longitudinal direction and the remaining 30 to 40 % of
fibers lay at an angle of up to 50º to the longitudinal direction (Ribbon Technology,
1994). The entangled individual stainless steel fibers that are smooth and straight with a
rectangular cross section form a continuous fiber-mat (Figure 3.27). These continuous
fiber mats were delivered in 4 ft (1.2 m) wide rolls. The average length of the individual
fiber was 6.0 in (15.2 cm) and the equivalent fiber diameter was 0.013 in (0.33 mm)
(Ribbon Technology, 1994). Thus, the fiber aspect ratio, the length to diameter ratio of
the fiber, was 462 while the specified fiber tensile strength was 80 ksi (552 MPa). The
fiber volume fraction of the SIMCON jacket, used in this research, was 5.0%.
Figure 3.27 – Stainless steel fiber mat
50
A minute after the completion of the mixing a flowability test of SIMCON slurry was
conducted using the flow cone according to ASTM C 939 – 94a. The time of the efflux of
water was measured to calibrate the flow cone. The time of the efflux of water was 7.75 s
while the average time of the efflux of SIMCON slurry was 12.22 seconds (Table 3.13).
sample time of efflux

[s]
1 12.00
2 11.90
3 12.35
4 12.28
5 12.55
Table 3.13 – Flowability test of SIMCON slurry
Material response was evaluated at the different times using standard 4 in x 8 in (10.2 cm
x 20.3 cm) cylinders.
Compressive tests of slurry cylinders were carried out using the same hydraulic machines
as for the testing of HS-LWA FRC cylinder specimens. The compressive strength tests
using the BLH machine were conducted at the average loading rate of 0.000105 in/s
(0.0027 mm/s), which is approximately equivalent to 40 psi/s (276 kPa/s). The test set-up
with three potentiometers and one LVDT, shown in Figure 3.18, was used.
The modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio were determined according to ASTM C 469
– 94. The results of both the modulus elasticity and Poisson’s ratio are shown in Table
51
3.14. The average value of the static modulus elasticity of four, approximately 13 months
old specimens, determined from the stress-strain relationship, was 3,450 ksi (23,700
MPa). The average Poisson’s ratio of the same cylinders was 0.93.
static modulus
specimen test day of elasticity Poisson's ratio # days old
[ksi]
#4 (SJ - 1) 8/24/2001 3439 0.93 394
#3 (SJ - 1) 8/27/2001 3381 0.90 397
#5 (SJ - 1) 9/7/2001 3679 1.01 408
#6 (SJ - 1) 9/7/2001 3228 0.88 408
Table 3.14 – Modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of the SIMCON slurry specimens
3.3.2.3 Compression
The compressive strength tests of the SIMCON slurry cylinder specimens were
conducted according to ASTM C 39 – 94. The results shown in Table 3.15 were obtained
by using both Forney and BLH machine. Stress-strain curves (Figures 3.28 and 3.29)
obtained from the compression tests using BLH machine show very brittle material
response. Volumetric strain was calculated using the following expression:
εvol = (εx + 2εy) / 3
52
specimen compressive longitudinal strain at
& strength compressive strength # days old
test date [psi] [in/in]
1 - 08/02/00 3701 N/A 7
2 - 08/02/00 8643 N/A 7
3 - 08/02/00 7075 N/A 7
4 - 08/02/00 9984 N/A 7
5 - 08/09/00 11069 N/A 14
6 - 08/09/00 10327 N/A 14
7 - 08/09/00 9222 N/A 14
8 - 08/09/00 12342 N/A 14
9 - 08/09/00 12367 N/A 14
10 - 08/09/00 10710 N/A 14
11 - 08/16/00 14168 N/A 21
12 - 08/16/00 14337 N/A 21
13 - 08/16/00 12656 N/A 21
14 - 08/16/00 14875 N/A 21
15 - 08/30/00 17830 N/A 35
16 - 08/30/00 17278 N/A 35
17 - 08/30/00 17944 N/A 35
18 - 08/30/00 17461 N/A 35
19 - 09/07/01 18512 0.00622 408
20 - 09/07/01 17535 0.00620 408
Table 3.15 – Compressive strength and longitudinal strain of the SIMCON slurry
specimens
53
SIMCON slurry cylinders
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
stress [psi]
#5 (SJ - 1)
10000
#6 (SJ - 1)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
strain [in/in]
Figure 3.28 – Stress-strain curves for SIMCON slurry (longitudinal strain)
#6 (SJ - 1) SIMCON slurry cylinder
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
longitudinal strain
stress [psi]
10000 transverse strain

volumetric strain
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
strain [in/in]
Figure 3.29 – Stress-strain curves for SIMCON slurry (volumetric strain)
54
The 28-day compressive strength of SIMCON slurry was evaluated form the cylinder test
results using the regression analysis. The predicted compressive strength at any time can
be evaluated using the following equation (ACI, “Manual of Concrete Practice”, 1991):
t
f’c,t = f’c,28
a + βt
This equation was modified to evaluate the compressive strength at any time of the
SIMCON slurry based on the average 21-day compressive strength:
t
f’s,t = f’s,21
a + βt
In this equation compressive strength at any time depends on the time, t in days, and
average 21-day compressive strength of SIMCON slurry, which was experimentally
determined to be equal to f’s,21 = 14,000 psi (96.6 MPa). Parameters a and β were
obtained using the regression analysis:
a = 4.6
β = 0.62
The expression for compressive strength of the SIMCON slurry at any time is:
t
f’s,t = 14,000 [psi]
4.6 + 0.62 t
Substituting all the values in the above expression, the compressive strength at 28th day
was determined to be equal to 17,900 psi (123.2 MPa).
55
The behavior of the SIMCON slurry tested in compression is very brittle and by adding
the fiber mats in the slurry the behavior of such a composite material becomes very
ductile. The expression for the compressive strength of the SIMCON which depends on
virtual compressive strength of the SIMCON slurry f’vs, fiber aspect ratio L/d, fiber
volume fraction Vf and coefficient α was developed in previous investigation
(Krstulovic-Opara and Al-Shannag, 1999):
f’SIMCON = f’vs (1 - Vf) + α Vf (L/d)
The addition of fibers appears to increase porosity of the matrix, which lowers the
ultimate strength from 16,500 psi (114 MPa), as measured for the plain matrix, to 8,200
psi (57 MPa) measured for the specimen with 2.16 % fiber volume fraction (Figure 3.30).
Beyond 2.16 % of fiber volume fraction the ultimate strength increases linearly with the
fiber volume fraction reaching the average ultimate strength value of 11,500 psi (79 MPa)
for fiber volume fraction of 5.39 %. Stress-strain responses for different fiber volume
fractions are shown in Figure 3.30 (Krstulovic-Opara and Al-Shannag, 1999).
Figure 3.30 – Stress-strain behavior of SIMCON in compression (longitudinal strain)
56
3.3.2.4 Tension
SIMCON slurry cylinder specimens were not tested in tension. The following results and
observations are obtained from the previous investigations of SIMCON cylinder
specimens tested in direct tension (Krstulovic-Opara and Malak, 1997). The presence of
SIMCON fiber mats resulted in the strain hardening which increased both the ultimate
tensile strength and ductility, reaching the maximum average value of 2,321 psi (16 MPa)
at 1.122 % of strain for a fiber mat volume fraction of 5.39 %. During the tensile loading
specimens exhibited significant strain hardening and multiple cracking, which consists of
a series of approximately uniformly distributed, and very fine cracks. These cracks are
disconnected, which should lead to increased impermeability and durability of the
composite (Krstulovic-Opara and Malak, 1997). The average values of SIMCON tensile
tests are shown in Table 3.16 (Krstulovic-Opara and Malak, 1997) and the stress-stress
behavior with a different volume fraction of the fiber mat is shown in Figure 3.31
(Krstulovic-Opara and Malak, 1997).
Vf Elastic modulus Ultimate stress Strain at ultimate stress

Batch
% MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) %
14,145 3.44
A 0.00 0.020
(2,050) (0.175)
18,110 7.06
B 2.16 1.003
(2,629) (1.025)
19,370 9.85
C 3.24 1.430
(2,812) (1.429)
20,360 12.13
D 4.31 1.001
(2,947) (1.760)
23,680 16.00
E 5.39 1.122
(3,437) (2.321)
Table 3.16 – Average tensile strength of the SIMCON specimens
57
Figure 3.31 – Stress-strain behavior of SIMCON in tension (longitudinal strain)
58
4 HP-FRC SPECIMEN GEOMETRY AND MANUFACTURING
4.1 Specimen Geometry
The steel tube, supplied by Apex Steel Corporation (Apex, North Carolina), was 12.75 in
(324 mm), 120 in (3048 mm), and 0.375 in (9.5 mm) in diameter, length, and thickness,
respectively. The inner diameter of the hollow tube was 12 in (304.8 mm). Two ¼” thick
doubler plates were welded near the bottom of the specimen and the 1 in (25.4 mm) thick
base plate was welded to the bottom end of the steel tube. The aspect ratio (D/t) of the
steel tube was 34. The side view of the specimen with its dimensions is shown in Figure
4.1. Figures 4.2 to 4.4 show the horizontal sections at the different heights:
• Through the SIMCON jacket above doubler plates
• Through doubler plates and the SIMCON jacket
• Through doubler plates below the SIMCON jacket
Two vertical sections, which are perpendicular to each other, are shown in Figure 4.5.
The reinforcement plans of the footing are shown in Figures 4.6 through 4.9.
STEEL TUBE
LOADING AXIS
6"
1'-218"
LOADING PADS
SIMCON JACKET
7'-785"
6'-583"
DOUBLER PLATE
TOP OF FOOTING
2'-512"
1'-1083"
BASE PLATE
3'
1"
Figure 4.1 – Side view of the specimen
59
3 3
8 " 1' 8"
STEEL TUBE
SIMCON Jacket 3/8" THK (A 53)
(Vf =5.0%) 30°
°
60
3/8" SHEAR STUDS
(4.6 grade)
HS-LWA FRC Core
(Vf =1.5%)
185" 1'-043" 185"
Figure 4.2 – Horizontal section through the SIMCON jacket above the doubler plate
3 3
8 " 1' 8 "
3/16" STEEL TUBE
3/8" THK (A 53)
SIMCON Jacket
30°
(Vf =5.0%)
60°
55°
(4.6 grade)
HS-LWA FRC Core
DOUBLER PLATE
(Vf =1.5%) 1/4" THK (A36)
183" 1'-114" 183"
Figure 4.3 – Horizontal section through the doubler plates and the SIMCON jacket
60
1.25 in ANCHORAGE RODS
(Plain steel)
1'-4"
3 3
8" 1' "
8
STEEL TUBE
3/8" THK (A 53)
35° 35°
DOUBLER PLATE
HS-LWA FRC Core 1/4" THK (A36)
(Vf =1.5%)
1'-114"
Figure 4.4 – Horizontal section through the doubler plates below the SIMCON jacket
1'-4" 1'-4"
1'-043" 1'-043"
6"
6" 6" 6" 72" 1'-12" 72" 72" 72" 72" 72" 72" 72" 72" 72" 9"
6" 72" 72" 72" 72" 72" 72" 72" 72" 72" 72" 9"
1
1
1
1
E
1
1
1
1
7'-3"
1
1
7'-112"
1
1
10'-1"
1
1
D D
1
1
1
1
4"
1
1
1
2
618"
E
1
3"
2'-4 "
2
1
3161 "
3' 3'
1"
Figure 4.5 – Vertical sections of the specimen
61
Figure 4.6 – Footing reinforcement schedule
62
Figure 4.7 – Footing reinforcement plan (top level)
63
Figure 4.8 – Footing reinforcement plan (bottom level)
64
Figure 4.9 – Footing reinforcement plan (bent bars)
65
4.2 Specimen Manufacturing
The construction procedure of SIMCON-jacketed high strength lightweight aggregate

fiber reinforced concrete filled steel tube specimen consisted of the following steps:
1) wrapping the steel tube with the fiber mats,
2) placing the jacket formwork around the tube already wrapped with the fiber mat,
3) injection of the SIMCON slurry,
4) casting of the HS-LWA FRC core, and
5) casting the column into the prestressed footing.
The steel tube was delivered with two ¼” (6.35 mm) thick welded doubler plates (steel A
36) and base plate (steel A 36), as well as, the holes for 3/8” (9.53 mm) threaded rods
were already drilled. A total of hundred 3 in (76.2 mm) long 3/8” (9.53 mm) threaded
rods (4.6 grade) were inserted along the steel tube so they protruded 1.5 in (38.1 mm)
outside of the steel tube surface, as shown in Figures 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5. The purpose of
these threaded rods was to act as shear studs transferring the forces between the HS-LWA
FRC core, steel tube and SIMCON jacket. Thirteen horizontal rows of three studs per row
were placed on two opposite sides of the steel tube where the doubler plates were located,
as shown in Figures 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5. Orthogonally to these rows of studs the remaining
studs were placed in two single rows on opposite sides of the steel tube, as shown in
Figures 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5.
4.2.1 SIMCON Jacket
The SONO tube was used as a formwork for the SIMCON jacket. The inside diameter
and the height of the SONO tube were 16 in (40.6 cm) and 92 in (233.7 cm), respectively.
SIMCON jacket was manufactured using two layers of the fiber mat that was placed
between the steel tube and SONO tube formwork. Each layer of the fiber mat was made
of the 48 in (121.9 cm) wide and 1.5 in (76.2 mm) thick roll that was cut to the length of
91 in (231.1 cm). Figure 4.10 shows the cutting of the fiber mat. The distance between
66
the inside diameter of the SONO tube formwork and outside diameter of the steel tube
was 1.625 in (4.13 cm). Each fiber mat weighted 47 lb (21.3 kg) and the mass density of
the stainless steel fibers was 490 lb/ft3 (7,849 kg/m3). Thus, the fiber mat volume fraction
calculated for the height of 1 in (25.4 mm) was 5.0%. The fiber mat was wrapped around
the steel tube and attached to it using 3/8” (9.53 mm) diameter threaded rods and tie
wires. The fiber mat was carefully pressed and pushed through the threaded rods as
shown in Figure 4.11. Before attaching the second layer of the fiber mat, the tie wires
were removed. The second layer was attached in the same manner but it was placed over
the first layer so that the ends of the first and second layer were on the opposite sides of
the tube (Figure 4.12). Thus, the continuity of the SIMCON jacket was ensured. Near the
bottom of the steel tube where fiber mats ended, the plywood closure was attached to seal
the SONO tube formwork to allow easy the injection of SIMCON slurry.
Figure 4.10 – Cutting the fiber mat
67
Figure 4.11 – Attaching the fiber mat
Figure 4.12 – Attaching the second layer of the fiber mat
After wrapping the steel tube with the fiber mats, the SONO tube formwork was prepared
for the installation. Plastic ports for the injection valves were attached along the SONO
tube in an alternating fashion. The SONO tube formwork was slid over the fiber mats as
shown in Figure 4.13 to 4.15. To prevent leaking of the slurry during injection, the silicon
was applied around the chamfered portion of the plywood closure, as well as on the
connection between the closure and SONO tube.
68
Figure 4.13 – Sliding the SONO tube formwork over the fiber mats
Figure 4.14 – Silicone application
69
Figure 4.15 – SONO tube formwork attached to the plywood closure
The injection valves were then screwed to the plastic ports on the SONO tube. Small
holes were drilled on the opposite side of the location of injection valves to ensure that
the SIMCON slurry is infiltrated throughout the fiber mat, around the entire
circumference of the steel tube. The entire specimen was then attached to the vibrating
table as shown in Figure 4.16. Afterwards, using the hand pump the prepared SIMCON
slurry was injected to the lower-most injection valve. As the SIMCON slurry infiltrated
the fiber mat from the bottom to the top, the injection valves and small holes were closed.
The injection process is shown in Figure 4.17.
Figure 4.16 – Specimen attached to the vibrating table
70
Figure 4.17 – SIMCON slurry injection
A total of 5.08 ft3 (0.14 m3) of the SIMCON slurry was mixed. The total slurry volume to
be mixed was calculated by increasing the volume of the SIMCON jacket, equal to 3.91
ft3 (0.11 m3), for 30%. Additional 30% were included to provide sufficient material
needed for casting the cylinder specimens as well as to account for material loss during
the handling and injection. Five batches of SIMCON slurry were mixed, where each
batch was 1.27 ft3 (0.036 m3).
The SONO tube was removed after 10 days and the SIMCON jacket was moist-cure for
two months by wrapping the entire specimen with the wet burlap and plastic sheets.
Figure 4.18 shows the specimen after the SIMCON jacket curing was finished.
71
Figure 4.18 – Specimen after the SIMCON jacket curing was finished
4.2.2 HS-LWA FRC Core
The specimen was fixed to the vibrating table by bolts at each corner of the specimen’s
base plate (Figure 4.19). The anchorage rods were supported by the wood frame, as
shown in Figure 4.20, to prevent extensive vibration of the long during the vibration of
the specimen. Once the HS-LWA FRC mix was ready, the big hopper (Figure 4.21) was
used to pour the mix into the steel tube. During casting of the HS-LWA FRC the
specimen was vibrated. The approximate frequency and pressure used for vibrating the
table were 30 Hz and 20-25 psi (140-170 kPa), respectively. A large hand vibrator was
also used during the casting to maximize quality of the HS-LWA FRC column core.
72
Figure 4.19 – Specimen fixed to the vibrating table
Figure 4.20 – Anchorage rods supported by the wood frame
73
Figure 4.21 – Big hopper used for pouring the HS-LWA FRC mix into the steel tube
A total of 10.50 ft3 (0.30 m3) of the HS-LWA FRC was mixed. The volume of the mix
was calculated by increasing the volume of the steel tube core, which was 7.85 ft3 (0.22
m3), for approximately 34%. Additional 34% were included to provide sufficient material
needed for casting the cylinder specimens as well as to account for material loss during
the handling and injection. Fourteen batches of HS-LWA FRC were mixed, where each
batch was 0.75 ft3 (0.021 m3).
After the casting was finished, the small amount of water was poured on the top of the
specimen. The top of the specimen was then cover with the burlap and plastic sheet to
prevent water evaporation. The burlap and plastic sheet were removed after two weeks of
moist-curing.
4.2.3 Footing
The entire specimen was cast into the post-tensioned concrete footing. The footing was
designed to ensure the development of the full plastic moment in the column under the
cycling load. Proper anchorage and embedment of the specimen was secured with 24
plain steel fully threaded anchorage rods as shown in Figure 4.22. The anchorage rods
were attached in four rows on the opposite sides of the steel tube where doubler plates
were located and they were screwed approximately 4 in (101.6 mm) into the holes. These
74
rods were 1¼ in (31.75 mm) in diameter, 3 ft (914.4 mm) in length, and had 7 coarse
threads per inch. The specified minimum tensile strength of the rod ranged from 58 ksi
(400 MPa) to 80 ksi (552 MPa). The region under the steel base plate was cast with the
high strength fiber reinforced concrete (HS FRC) to prevent the crushing of concrete in
that zone under the high loads expected during specimen testing (Figure 4.23). The mix
proportions for the HS FRC were the same as for the HS-LWA FRC but instead of the
Stalite light-weight aggregate, the normal weight aggregate was used.
Figure 4.22 – The anchorage rods
Figure 4.23 – HS FRC base
75
Figures 4.24 to 4.26 show the footing reinforcement details. Dywidag bars shown in
Figure 4.27 were used for post-tensioning of the footing to the reaction floor and wall.
Dywidag bars were stressed, 90 kips (400 kN) each, using electrically powered hydraulic
jacks. The specified compressive strength of the concrete for the footing was 5,000 psi
(34.5 MPa). After the casting, the footing was covered with the plastic sheets to prevent
the water evaporation. The footing was moist-cured for one week.
Figure 4.24 – Prestressed footing reinforcement and formwork
76
Figure 4.25 – Steel reinforcement around the steel tube
Figure 4.26 – Steel reinforcement at location of Dywidag prestressing bars
77
Figure 4.27 – Dywidag bars and accessories (Dykerhoff and Widmann, Inc.)
78
5 TESTING AND BEHAVIOR OF HP-FRC SPECIMEN
Seismic performance of the HP-FRC column specimen was evaluated using a quasi-static
test method.
5.1 Instrumentation
Overall load-displacement specimen response, as well as deformations and rotations were

measured during testing within seven specimen zones, labeled A through G (from top to
bottom), as shown in Figure 5.1. Distances from the load axis to the middle of each zone
are summarized in the Table 5.1. Five different types of measurement instruments were
used to measure strains, displacements and rotations:
• Strain gages
• Potentiometers
• Linear voltage differential transformers (LVDTs)
• String potentiometer
• Clinometers
Strain gages were attached to the steel tube before jacketing it with SIMCON. All other
instrumentation was attached to the specimen after the end of jacket curing.
Potentiometers, LVDTs, string potentiometer and clinometers were calibrated before they
were mounted to the specimen. Table 5.2 shows the calibration data. Listed measurement
instruments and the load cell were connected to the data acquisition to monitor and record
the data, as shown in Tables 5.3a to 5.3c.
79
NORTH
1'-918"
A
543" 712" 712" 712" 712" 712" 712"

B
C
D
E
F
G
Figure 5.1 – Specimen zones of interest
Distance, X
Zone
[in] [cm]
A 24.875 63.18
B 32.375 82.23
C 39.875 101.28
D 47.375 120.33
E 54.875 139.38
F 62.375 158.43
G 69.000 175.26
Table 5.1 – Distances from the load axis to the middle of each zone
80
Potentiometer Tag name 0" reading 1" reading 12 V power supply data acquisition (10 V)
[V] [V] [V/in] [V/in]
north potentiometer #1 (bottom) P 1 N 11.39 5.39 6.00 5.00
north potentiometer #2 P2N 10.83 4.82 6.01 5.01
north potentiometer #7 (top) P7N 11.69 5.67 6.02 5.02
south potentiometer #1 (bottom) P 1 S 11.59 5.57 6.02 5.02
south potentiometer #2 P2S 11.31 5.31 6.00 5.00
south potentiometer #7 (top) P7S 9.00 2.99 6.01 5.01
LVDT Tag name -0.1" reading 0" reading +0.1" reading 0.2" data acquisition (10 V)
[mV] [mV] [mV] [mV] [mV/in]
north LVDT LVDT N -4076.875 -0.313 4142.813 8219.688 41098.438
south LVDT LVDT S -4404.063 -0.625 4395.938 8800.000 44000.000
Clinometer Tag name 0° reading 90° reading 90° data acquisition (10 V)
[mV] [mV] [mV] [mV/°]
clinometer #1 (bottom) CLIN 1 -0.3125 2253.7500 2254.06 25.05
clinometer #2 CLIN 2 -0.3125 2311.8750 2312.19 25.69
clinometer #3 (top) CLIN 3 -0.3125 2259.6875 2260.00 25.11
Table 5.2 – Calibration data
tag name tag description units

MTS DISP MTS displacement in
MTS LOAD MTS load lb
S POT string pot µε
CLIN 1 clinometer #1 (bottom) °
CLIN 2 clinometer #2 °
CLIN 3 clinometer #3 (top) °
Table 5.3a – Tag list for the instruments
81
0 strain gage 0 - steel tube (top), north µε
1 strain gage 1 - steel tube, north µε
2 strain gage 2 - steel tube, north µε
3 strain gage 3 - steel tube (bottom), north µε
4 strain gage 4 - steel tube (top), east µε
5 strain gage 5 - steel tube, east µε
6 strain gage 6 - steel tube, east µε
7 strain gage 7 - steel tube (bottom), east µε
8 strain gage 8 - steel tube (top), south µε
9 strain gage 9 - steel tube, south µε
10 strain gage 10 - steel tube, south µε
11 strain gage 11 - steel tube (bottom), south µε
12 strain gage 12 - steel tube (top), west µε
13 strain gage 13 - steel tube, west µε
14 strain gage 14 - steel tube, west µε
15 strain gage 15 - steel tube (bottom), west µε
50 strain gage 50 - SIMCON jacket (top), north µε
51 strain gage 51 - SIMCON jacket, north µε
52 strain gage 52 - SIMCON jacket, north µε
53 strain gage 53 - SIMCON jacket (bottom), north µε
54 strain gage 54 - SIMCON jacket (top), east µε
55 strain gage 55 - SIMCON jacket, east µε
57 strain gage 57 - SIMCON jacket (bottom), east µε
571 strain gage 571 - SIMCON jacket (bottom), east µε
58 strain gage 58 - SIMCON jacket (top), south µε
59 strain gage 59 - SIMCON jacket, south µε
61 strain gage 61 - SIMCON jacket (bottom), south µε
62 strain gage 62 - SIMCON jacket (top), west µε
63 strain gage 63 - SIMCON jacket, west µε
64 strain gage 64 - SIMCON jacket, west µε
65 strain gage 65 - SIMCON jacket (bottom), west µε
Table 5.3b – Tag list for the instruments
82
P1N north potentiometer #1 (bottom) in
P2N north potentiometer #2 in
P7N north potentiometer #7 (top) in
P1S south potentiometer #1 (bottom) in
P2S south potentiometer #2 in
P7S south potentiometer #7 (top) in
LVDT N north LVDT in
LVDT S south LVDT in
Table 5.3c – Tag list for the instruments
5.1.1 Strain Gages
As compared to potentiometers and clinometers, strain gages provide reliable and

accurate data at low deformation level. In this investigation strain gages were used to
measure strains in both steel tube and SIMCON jacket. Strain gages made by
Measurements Group, INC., Raleigh, North Carolina, were used in this research. The
centerline of each strain gage was located in the middle of the corresponding zone. The
strain gages measured strains in bottom four zones, zone D through G.
Strain gages of the type CEA-06-250UW-120 were attached to the steel tube to measure
strains within a cross-section in both longitudinal and transverse specimen directions, as
shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. Strain gage properties are presented in Table 5.4. The
following products and steps were used for the surface preparation and bonding of the
strain gages to the steel tube:
83
• water-based acidic surface cleaner M-Prep conditioner A, part no. MCA-1, was
used to remove any contaminants from the steel surface,
• the surface was rinsed with water,
• M-Prep neutralizer 5A, part no. MN5A-1, was used to bring the surface condition
back to an optimum alkalinity,
• the surface was dried by wiping the cleaned area with a clean gauze sponge,
• the strain gage and terminal were attached to the Teflon tape,
• 200 catalyst-c was applied to the strain gage and terminal to protect them from the
adhesive chemicals,
• adhesive M-Bond 200 was applied to the surface to bond the strain gage and
terminal to the steel tube,
• Teflon tape was carefully removed,
• the wires were soldered to the terminal and strain gage,
• nitrile rubber coating M-Coat B was used next to provide a good bonding surface
for the subsequent coating of M-Coat J, and
• polysulfide protective coating M-Coat J, a two-part polysulfide liquid polymer
compound for environmental protection of the strain gage installation, was
applied. It formed a rubber-like covering that provides a protection from
mechanical damage and barrier against water and other fluids that could affect the
resistances of the strain gage.
Strain gages of the type N2A-06-20CBW-120 were attached to the SIMCON jacket to
measure strains within a cross-section in both longitudinal and transverse specimen
directions, as shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. Strain gage properties are presented in Table
5.4. The following products and steps were used for the surface preparation and bonding
of the strain gages to the SIMCON jacket:
• water-based acidic surface cleaner M-Prep conditioner A, part no. MCA-2, was
used to remove any contaminants from the SIMCON jacket surface,
• the surface was rinsed with water, next,
84
• M-Prep neutralizer 5A, part no. MN5A-2, was applied,
• the surface was dried by wiping the cleaned area with a clean gauze sponge,
• adhesive M-Bond AE-10 was applied to the cleaned surface and it was left to dry,
• the surface was polished to obtain smooth place for strain gage bonding,
• degreaser CSM-1A was applied to the polished surface,
• M-Prep conditioner A, part no. MCA-2, was applied and the surface was scrubbed
with a sand paper,
• the layout lines were drawn,
• M-Prep neutralizer 5A, part no. MN5A-2, was used to bring the surface condition
back to an optimum alkalinity,
• the surface was dried wiping the cleaned area with a clean gauze sponge,
• the strain gage and terminal were attached to the Teflon tape,
• 200 catalyst-c was applied to the strain gage and terminal to protect them from the
adhesive chemicals,
• adhesive M-Bond 200 was applied to the surface to bond the strain gage and
terminal to the steel tube,
• Teflon tape was carefully removed,
• the wires were soldered to the terminal and strain gage,
• nitrile rubber coating M-Coat B was used to provide a good bonding surface for
the subsequent coating of M-Coat J, and
• polysulfide protective coating M-Coat J, a two-part polysulfide liquid polymer
compound for environmental protection of the strain gage installation, was
applied. It formed a rubber-like covering that provides a protection from
mechanical damage and barrier against water and other fluids that could affect the
resistances of the strain gage.
Curvature of the cross-section at the particular height of the specimen was evaluated from
the obtained strains. Data from the strain gages attached to the steel tube and those
85
attached to the SIMCON jacket were used to determine if adequate bonding existed
between the steel tube and SIMCON jacket.
The strain gages were attached vertically to the north and south side of the specimen to
measure longitudinal strains on the steel tube and SIMCON jacket, as shown in Figures
5.2 and 5.3. Lateral strains were measured by horizontally attached strain gages on the
east and west side of the specimen, as shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. Strain gages were
attached to the SIMCON jacket at the same height as the corresponding strain gages
placed on the steel tube. Strain gages attached to the SIMCON jacket are shown in
Figures 5.4 through 5.7. A few additional strain gages were attached to the SIMCON
jacket.
15°
STEEL TUBE
SIMCON Jacket
30°
NORTH SOUTH
30°
strain gage axis

(longitudinal strains)
15°
strain gage axis
(lateral strains)
Figure 5.2 – Cross-sectional location of the strain gages
86
NORTH
3'-1183"
D
685" 712" 712"

E
F
G
Figure 5.3 – Location of vertically and horizontally attached strain gages
Type CEA-06-250UW-120 N2A-06-20CBW-120

Resistance in Ohms at 24° C 120.0±0.3% 120.0±0.2%
Gage factor at 24° C 2.065±0.5% 2.090±0.5%
Transverse sensitivity at 24° C (+0.4±0.2)% (-1.3±0.2)%
Gage length 0.25 in (6.35 mm) 2.00 in (50.80 mm)
Overall length 0.45 in (11.43 mm) 2.25 in (57.15 mm)
Grid width 0.18 in (4.57 mm) 0.188 in (4.78 mm)
Overall width 0.18 in (4.57 mm) 0.188 in (4.78 mm)
Table 5.4 – Strain gage properties
87
Figure 5.4 – Vertically attached strain gage
Figure 5.5 – Horizontally attached strain gage
88
Figure 5.6 – Vertically attached strain gages on the south side of the specimen
Figure 5.7 – Horizontally attached strain gages on the west side of the specimen
89
5.1.2 Potentiometers
Due to the limited range of strain gages, additional instrumentation was needed to obtain
data at the higher deformation levels. Therefore, potentiometers were also used to
measure longitudinal displacement within zones A to G. Strains were calculated from the
potentiometer data, specimen geometry and distance between potentiometer supports.
Small threaded bars, shown in Figures 5.8 to 5.10 and 5.13, were used as potentiometer
supports. The bars were attached at the border line of each zone. The bars were attached
first by drilling the holes into the SIMCON jacket without penetrating in the steel tube,
followed by inserting the threaded bars coated with epoxy into these holes.
Potentiometers were placed vertically along the north (Figure 5.9) and south side of the
HP-FRC specimen. The selected potentiometers were capable of measuring ±1.0 in
(±2.54 mm). Specific details of the potentiometer layout are shown in Figures 5.11 and
5.12.
Figure 5.8 – Supports for potentiometers
90
Figure 5.9 – Potentiometers on the north side of the specimen
Figure 5.10 – Potentiometer fixed to its supports
91
STEEL TUBE
SIMCON Jacket
potentiometer
NORTH SOUTH
potentiometer
Figure 5.11 – Cross-sectional location of the potentiometers
NORTH
1'-981"
A
543" 712" 712" 712" 712" 712" 712"
B
C
D
E
F
G
Figure 5.12 – Potentiometers layout
92
Potentiometers data were used for calculating curvature changes within each zone.
Because of the instrumentation layout only an average curvature could be evaluated
within a given zone. Average curvature in each zone was evaluated from the average
strains in that zone. Change in strain values throughout a given zone was assumed to be
linear. Therefore, average strains and curvatures were assumed to represent the actual
values in the section located at half the zone height. Because vertically attached strain
gages were located in the middle of bottom four zones (D, E, F and G), the average strain
and curvature potentiometer data could be directly compared to data from the
corresponding vertical strain gages. The potentiometers at the south side of the specimen
and corresponding strain gages are shown in Figure 5.13.
Figure 5.13 – Potentiometers and corresponding strain gages on the south side
93
5.1.3 Linear Voltage Differential Transformers
Two linear voltage differential transformers (LVDTs) were attached to the bottom of
north and south side of the specimen, as shown in Figure 5.14. The purpose of these
LVDTs was to determine if there is any excessive rotation at the bottom of the specimen
that would indicate excessive crushing of the specimen support. LVDT fixed on the south
side of the specimen is shown in Figure 5.14. The gage length of the LVDT was 0.25 in
(6.35 mm) and the LVDTs were mounted so that vertical movement of ±0.125 in (±3.18
mm) was allowed.
Figure 5.14 – LVDT fixed at the south side of the specimen
5.1.4 String Potentiometer
The string potentiometer, P-50A, attached to the reaction wall (Figure 5.15) and LVDT
support on the north side of the specimen was used to evaluate any potential slip of the
concrete footing.
94
Figure 5.15 – String potentiometer attached to the reaction wall
5.1.5 Clinometers
As previously mentioned the moment-curvature response of zones F was evaluated using

data obtained from both potentiometers and corresponding strain gages. Three
clinometers were also attached in these zones, as shown in Figure 5.16. Their purpose
was to measure curvature changes when deformation exceeds capacity of both the strain
gages and potentiometers. The clinometers layout is shown in Figures 5.17 and 5.18. The
clinometers were fixed to the small threaded rods in the same manner as in the case of
potentiometers. Clinometer properties are presented in the Table 5.5.
95
Figure 5.16 – Clinometers on the west side of the specimen
STEEL TUBE
SIMCON Jacket
NORTH SOUTH
clinometer
Figure 5.17 – Cross-sectional location of the clinometers
96
NORTH
4'-1085"
F
543" 712"
G
Figure 5.18 – Clinometers layout
Total range ±60°

Linear range ±45°
Threshold 0.001°
Linearity: 0° to 10° ±0.1°
Linearity: 10° to 45° ±1%
Linearity: 45° to 60° monotonic
Null repeatability ±0.05°
Table 5.5 – Clinometer properties
5.1.6 Load Cell - MTS Actuator
The MTS actuator, model number 243.60T, capable of applying dynamic loading was
fixed to the reaction wall, as shown in Figure 5.19. Its height from the reaction floor was
9’6” (2.90 m). MTS actuator was monitored and controlled by separate MTS controller
97
system, which measured load and load point displacement. The actual test was defined
using the Test Ware-SX software. The actuator capacity was 235 kip (1,045 kN) and 150
kip (667 kN) in compression and tension, respectively. Both static and dynamic stroke
were 40 in (101.6 cm).
Figure 5.19 – MTS actuator
5.1.7 Data Acquisition
Data from the instrumentation, as well as from the actuator load cell were recorded to
data acquisition by a high-speed OPTIM MEGADAC 3415 AC data acquisition system,
as shown in Figure 5.20. TCS software package was used for this purpose. A total of 54
channels were used to record the data at the scanning speed of 0.5 seconds per data point.
98
Figure 5.20 – Instruments connected to the data acquisition
5.2 Test Set-Up
Test layout is shown in Figure 5.21. The specimen was whitewashed, as shown in Figure
5.22, to facilitate crack detection and monitoring. The height at which the doubler plates
end was marked on the SIMCON jacket (Figure 5.23). Instruments and actuator attached
to the specimen are shown in Figures 5.24 and 5.25. The complete test set-up is shown in
Figures 5.26 to 5.28.
99
15' 4'-6"
1'-281"
REACTION WALL
ACTUATOR
6'-583"
HP-FRC SPECIMEN
3'-012"
FOOTING
Figure 5.21 – Test layout
Figure 5.22 – Whitewashed specimen
100
Figure 5.23 – Location of the doubler plate marked on the SIMCON jacket
Figure 5.24 – Instruments mounted to the specimen
101
Figure 5.25 – Actuator attached to the specimen
15°
STEEL TUBE
SIMCON Jacket
potentiometer
30°
NORTH SOUTH
potentiometer
30°
strain gage axis

(longitudinal strains)
clinometer 15°
strain gage axis
(lateral strains)
Figure 5.26 – Cross-sectional location of the instrumentation
102
NORTH
Figure 5.27 – Location of the instrumentation attached to the specimen
Figure 5.28 – Test set-up
103
5.3 Test Overview
The HP-FRC column specimen was subjected to a static-reversed cyclic loading. The
load/displacement history used in this research is shown in Figure 5.29.
Up to 75 % of the predicted yield force, Py, the cyclic loading was applied under the load
control The predicted yield force, Py, and yield displacement, ∆y, were analytically
determined. Beyond the load of 0.75 Py, loading was performed under the displacement
control. Each cycle at the level of interest was repeated three times followed by one
elastic cycle with amplitude of 75% yield displacement. The set of three identical cycles
was used to evaluate stability in both specimen strength and energy dissipation capacity,
while the elastic cycle was used to determine changes in the stiffness during the test. The
peak loading was held constant to allow marking and labeling of the cracks. The HP-FRC
column specimen failed during the 37th cycle. The complete load/displacement history is
presented in Figure 5.29 and corresponding Table 5.6. In this figure, the load-point
displacement is presented in terms of the displacement ductility, µ∆, which was defined
as the ratio of the given displacement and yield displacement. Yield displacement was
defined as the load-point displacement when the strain in the extreme fiber of the steel
tube reached the yield strain.
Load/displacement History
6
displacement ductility
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-2
-4
-6
cycle #
Figure 5.29 – Load/displacement history
104
cycle # load/displacement rate of loading
0-2 0.25 Py 11.3500 kip 11.35 kip/min
3-5 0.50 Py 22.7000 kip 11.35 kip/min
6-8 0.75 Py 34.0500 kip 11.35 kip/min
9-11 1.0 ∆y 0.9500 in 0.20 in/min
12 0.75 ∆y 0.7125 in 0.20 in/min
13-15 1.5 ∆y 1.4250 in 0.40 in/min
16 0.75 ∆y 0.7125 in 0.20 in/min
17-19 2.0 ∆y 1.9000 in 0.40 in/min
20 0.75 ∆y 0.7125 in 0.20 in/min
21-23 2.5 ∆y 2.3750 in 0.40 in/min
24 0.75 ∆y 0.7125 in 0.20 in/min
25-27 3.0 ∆y 2.8500 in 0.40 in/min
28 0.75 ∆y 0.7125 in 0.20 in/min
29-31 4.0 ∆y 3.8000 in 0.80 in/min
32 0.75 ∆y 0.7125 in 0.20 in/min
33-35 5.0 ∆y 4.7500 in 0.80 in/min
36 0.75 ∆y 0.7125 in 0.20 in/min
37 6.0 ∆y 5.7000 in 0.80 in/min
Table 5.6 – Load/displacement history and corresponding rates of loading
It is important to note that during cycles 13-24, due to a partial failure of the data
acquisition-control system, complete loading cycles were not recorded. More specifically,
while a complete record was obtained when the actuator was pushing the specimen in the
southern direction, electronic record was incomplete for the parts of the cycles when the
actuator was pulling in the northern direction.
5.4 Response of HP-FRC Column Specimen
The load-displacement and moment-curvature responses were of the main interest

because they represent the behavior of the HP-FRC column specimen at two different
105
levels. The load-displacement response represents the behavior of the entire column
member while the moment-curvature response represents the behavior of the cross-
section. Each moment-curvature response was representative of the cross-sections at the
mid-height of corresponding zones of interest. Obtained data were than used to evaluate
ductility, energy absorption, hysteretic damping, stiffness degradation, work and damage
indexes of the specimen.
Load, displacement, moment and curvature were considered positive when the column
was being pushed away from the reaction wall. This means that the side of the specimen
facing the reaction wall was in tension, while the opposite side was in compression.
Each of the instruments attached to the specimen were useful at the different stage of the
test. Potentiometers were used to obtain data after the strain gages exceeded their
capacity. Once debonding and splitting of the SIMCON jacket from the steel tube
occurred in the failure region, potentiometers in this zone were not useful any more and
they were removed from that region.
5.4.1 Longitudinal Strain Behavior
The average yield strain obtained from the stress-strain response of the tested steel
coupons (see Chapter 3.1.1.3 Tension) was used to check the estimated yield point. The
obtained average yield strain, 0.00178 in/in, was considered as a strain when yielding of
the steel tube took place. Moment-strain responses were developed and analyzed for
Zone G to determine which instruments were reporting accurate data. Curvature was
calculated assuming the strain compatibility approach and assuming that plane sections
remain plane throughout loading. From the calculated curvature and column cross-section
geometry, strain at the extreme fiber of the steel tube was obtained. Plot of applied
moment versus longitudinal strain at the steel tube surface on the north side of the
specimen for cycles 0-13 are shown in Figures 5.30a, 5.30b and 5.30c. From the analysis
of the moment-strain responses it was determined that the potentiometers and strain gages
106
attached to the SIMCON jacket produced data with acceptable reliability. Yielding
occurred first in Zone G on the north side of the specimen during the cycle 13 as shown
in Figures 5.30d and 5.30e. Those figures also show that yielding occurred in Zone F
almost at the same time as in Zone G.
M oment-strain response
Zone G at the north side - cycle 0-13
5000
4000
3000
2000
moment [kip-in]
1000
strain gages (steel)
0
steel yielding
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
strain [in/in]
Figure 5.30a – Moment-strain response of zone G - north side (steel strain gages)
107
5000
4000
3000
2000
moment [kip-in]
1000
strain gages (SIMCON)
0
steel yielding
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
strain [in/in]
Figure 5.30b – Moment-strain response of zone G - north side (SIMCON strain gages)
5000
4000
3000
2000
moment [kip-in]
1000
potentiometers
0
steel yielding
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
strain [in/in]
Figure 5.30c – Moment-strain response of zone G - north side (potentiometers)
108
Zone G and Zone F at the north side - cycle 0-13
5000
4000
3000
2000
moment [kip-in]
1000
Zone G
0 steel yielding
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 Zone F
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
strain [in/in]
Figure 5.30d – Moment-strain response of zones G and F at the north side
Zone G and Zone F at the south side - cycle 0-13
5000
4000
3000
2000
moment [kip-in]
1000
Zone G
0 steel yielding
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 Zone F
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
strain [in/in]
Figure 5.30e – Moment-strain response of zones G and F at the south side
109
Due to a partial failure of the data acquisition-control system during cycles 13-24, data on
the yielding of the north side of the steel tube, were not recorded.
5.4.2 Load-Displacement Response
The experimentally obtained load-displacement response of the column specimen is

shown in Figure 5.31. Those parts of the cycles that were not electronically recorded in
their complete form were not included in the load-displacement response. The non-linear
behavior of the column specimen can be characterized by different limit states
represented in Figure 5.32. The yield displacement, ∆y = 1.079 in (27.41 mm), and load at
the yielding, Py = 51.37 kip (228.5 kN) were determined from the experimentally
evaluated yield strain of steel. The ratio between experimentally determined and
predicted yield displacement, ∆y, was 1.14. The yield limit state was reached during the
cycle 13. At this point there was no significant change of the stiffness. The reduction of
stiffness was first noticed after the occurrence of the first crack in the SIMCON jacket
during the cycle 17, which corresponds to the deflection of 1.76 ∆y. Debonding of the
SIMCON jacket took place during the cycle 21, at the load-point deflection of 2.20 ∆y
and ultimate load of 65.99 kip (293.5 kN). The stiffness of the column specimen was
suddenly reduced as a result of debonding. Failure condition was reached in the cycle 35
at the displacement of 4.40 ∆y = 4.754 in (120.75 mm). Beyond that point a significant
reduction in the load carrying capacity was evident. The load-displacement response
shows that column specimen exhibited good hysteretic behavior even after debonding of
the SIMCON jacket. The areas enclosed by the hysteresis loops indicate the good energy
dissipation of the HP-FRC column specimen.
110
Load - Displacement Response
HP-FRC Column Specimen
4
8 10
4
6 10
4
4 10
4
2 10
Load [lb]
4
-2 10
4
-4 10
4
-6 10
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement [in]
Figure 5.31 – Load-displacement response of the HP-FRC column specimen
111
Limit States
80000
Cracking Ultimate
60000
Yielding Failure
40000
20000
Load [lb]
-20000
-40000
-60000
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement [in]
Figure 5.32 – Limit state conditions of the HP-FRC column specimen
5.4.3 Moment-Curvature Response
The presented moment-curvature responses of zones A through G were calculated using

potentiometer data. Comparison between moment-curvature responses of all zones
showed that responses match very well to each other. Those parts of the cycles that that
were not electronically recorded in their complete form were not included in the moment-
curvature response diagrams.
112
5.4.3.1 Zone A
The experimentally obtained moment-curvature response of zone A for the column

specimen is shown in Figure 5.33. The maximum curvature, φmax = 0.000131 1/in
(0.00516 1/m), was observed during the cycle 17 which corresponded to the load-point
deflection of 1.75 ∆y. The corresponding maximum moment was 1,640 kip-in (186 kNm).
This zone has not experienced the non-linear behavior and there was no change of the
stiffness throughout the testing.
Moment - Curvature Response

Zone A
2000
1500
1000
Moment [kip-in]
500
-500
-1000
-1500
-5 -5
-0.00015 -0.0001 -5 10 0 5 10 0.0001 0.00015
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 5.33 – Moment-curvature response of the zone A
113
5.4.3.2 Zone B
The moment-curvature response of the zone B is shown in Figure 5.34. The maximum
curvature of 0.000203 1/in (0.00799 1/m) was observed during the cycle 21 when the
load-point deflection was 2.20 ∆y. The corresponding maximum moment was 2,140 kip-
in (241 kNm). Response of this zone was linear elastic throughout testing.

Zone B
3000
2000
1000
Moment [kip-in]
-1000
-2000
-0.0002 -0.0001 0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 5.34 – Moment-curvature response of the zone B
5.4.3.3 Zone C
The moment-curvature response of the zone C is shown in Figure 5.35. The maximum
curvature, φmax = 0.000249 1/in (0.00980 1/m), was observed during the cycle 21 when
114
the load-point deflection was 2.20 ∆y. The corresponding maximum moment was 2,630
kip-in (297 kNm). There was no significant change of the stiffness at that zone
throughout testing.

Zone C
3000
2000
1000
Moment [kip-in]
-1000
-2000
-3000
-5 -5
-0.00015-0.0001 -5 10 0 5 10 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 5.35 – Moment-curvature response of the zone C
5.4.3.4 Zone D
The experimentally obtained moment-curvature response of the zone D is shown in

Figure 5.36. The maximum curvature of 0.000345 1/in (0.0136 1/m) was observed during
the cycle 21 which corresponded to the load-point deflection of 2.20 ∆y. The
115
corresponding maximum moment was 3,130 kip-in (353 kNm). There was no significant
change of the stiffness at that zone throughout testing.

Zone D
4000
3000
2000
Moment [kip-in]
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-0.0003 -0.0002 -0.0001 0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 5.36 – Moment-curvature response of the zone D
5.4.3.5 Zone E
The moment-curvature response of the zone E is presented in Figure 5.37. Data show that
column in this zone experienced the non-linear behavior. The reduction of stiffness was
evident towards the end of test especially after debonding of SIMCON jacket occurred
during the cycle 17. The maximum curvature, φmax = 0.000570 1/in (0.0224 1/m), was
observed during the cycle 29 which corresponded to the load-point deflection of 3.53 ∆y.
116
The corresponding maximum moment was 3,620 kip-in (409 kNm). The moment-
curvature response shows that column specimen exhibited good hysteretic behavior in the
zone E even after debonding of the SIMCON jacket. The areas enclosed by the hysteresis
loops indicate increased energy dissipation within that zone of the HP-FRC column
specimen comparing to zones A through D. The column specimen achieved greater
curvature when north side was in tension than in compression.

Zone E
4000
3000
2000
1000
Moment [kip-in]
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 5.37 – Moment-curvature response of the zone E
5.4.3.6 Zone F
The experimentally evaluated moment-curvature response of the zone F is shown in

Figure 5.38. Because of the significant cracking and debonding of the SIMCON jacket
117
within the zone F, the moment-curvature diagram “shifted” during the last six cycles. The
same moment-curvature response shown without those last few cycles is presented in
Figure 5.39. This zone has experienced the non-linear behavior and the stiffness
reduction was apparent. The maximum reliably measured curvature, φmax = 0.000786 1/in
(0.0309 1/m), was observed during the cycle 21 which corresponded to the load-point
deflection of 2.20 ∆y. The corresponding maximum moment was 4,120 kip-in (465 kNm).
The moment-curvature response indicates good energy dissipation within the zone F.
Again, the column specimen achieved greater curvature when north side was in tension
than in compression.

Zone F
6000
4000
2000
Moment [kip-in]
-2000
-4000
-0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 5.38 – Moment-curvature response of the zone F
118
Zone F
6000
4000
2000
Moment [kip-in]
-2000
-4000
-0.0004 -0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 5.39 – Modified moment-curvature response of the zone F
5.4.3.7 Zone G
The moment-curvature response of the zone G is shown in Figure 5.40. At the beginning
of cycle 32 the potentiometer that measured deformation within zone G on the north side
of the column specimen was removed because the delaminated piece of SIMCON jacket
around the major crack was pushing the potentiometer and that could damage it. Figure
5.41 shows the moment-curvature response for zone G to the cycle 32. This zone has
experienced the non-linear behavior and the reduction of stiffness was evident especially
after debonding of SIMCON jacket took place. From the yield strain and corresponding
moment, My = 3,550 kip-in (401 kNm), the curvature at yielding was easily determined.
The curvature at yielding, φy = 0.000284 1/in (0.0112 1/m), was reached during the cycle
119
13, while the maximum curvature, φmax = 0.007215 1/in (0.284 1/m), was observed
during the cycle 31. The maximum curvature was reached at the load-point deflection of
3.59 ∆y. The corresponding maximum moment was 4,550 kip-in (514 kNm). The areas
enclosed by the hysteresis loops indicate good energy dissipation within the zone G.
When the north side of the column was in tension, the achieved curvature was greater
than in compression.

Zone G
5000
Moment [kip-in]
-5000
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 5.40 – Moment-curvature response of the zone G
120
Zone G
5000
Moment [kip-in]
-5000
-0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 5.41 – Modified moment-curvature response of the zone G
5.4.4 Physical Observations
First cracks occurred during the cycle 17 on the north side of the specimen above the
doubler plate, i.e., within zones F and G, as shown in Figure 5.42. During the same cycle,
cracks occurred on the south side above the doubler plate within the zone E, F and G, as
shown Figure 5.43. These thin cracks propagated very slowly from cycle to cycle and
during the cycle 21 debonding of the SIMCON jacket took place within the zone G.
Debonding was recognized as a characteristic outburst. During the same cycle 21, first
cracks appeared on the compression (south) side of the column. Further crack
propagation was accompanied by a spalling of thin SIMCON pieces. Two major cracks
that eventually controlled specimen failure were formed, one in the middle on the north
121
side of zone G, as shown in Figure 5.44, and other below support of the bottom
potentiometer on the south side, as shown in Figure 5.45. Cycle 25 was characterized by
the propagation of existing cracks and occurrence of the new cracks on both sides of the
column. The width of the existing cracks was difficult to measure because of the presence
of dense fiber mat in the SIMCON jacket, while the new cracks were 0.007 in (0.18 mm)
wide. Horizontal cracks started branching into vertical cracks on the compression (north)
side (Figure 5.46). By the cycle 25 most of the strain gages attached to the SIMCON
jacket in the bottom two zones were damaged by the cracks that propagated through those
strain gages. At the end of cycle 27, two existing major cracks joined on the west and east
side of the column (Figure 5.47). During the cycle 29, more cracks were joined and two
major cracks on both sides of the column became wider. The spalling of the SIMCON
jacket was observed around the cracks. The crack width at the peak load varied between
0.625 in (15.88 mm) and 0.750 in (19.05 mm). Noise that was heard during the following
cycles was due to further debonding of the SIMCON jacket in the region around the
major cracks and rupturing of the steel tube within the same region. The widest crack on
the north side of the column was 0.750 in (19.05 mm) to 0.875 in (22.23 mm) wide at the
peak load (Figure 5.48). The bottom potentiometer on the north side of the column was
removed at the beginning of the cycle 32. At the peak load of the cycle 33, the cracks on
the north side, which was in tension, were 1.000 in – 1.375 in (25.40 – 34.93 mm) wide.
At the same time the width of vertical cracks on the south side, which was in
compression, was between 0.500 in (12.70 mm) and 0.750 in (19.05 mm). Severe
cracking passing through the shear studs holes and limited outwards buckling of the steel
tube on the north and south side were observed between cycles 33 and 35 (Figures 5.49
and 5.50). Significant deformation of the column specimen during the cycle 34 is shown
in Figure 5.51. During the cycle 37 the column became unstable (Figure 5.52) as a result
of steel tube buckling and the test was stopped. The crack through the steel tube is shown
in Figure 5.53. Figures 5.54 through 5.60 show the region where the failure occurred after
removing the instrumentation. After the column specimen was torn apart, the nature of
the failure surfaces was investigated (Figures 5.61 and 5.62). Figures 5.61 and 5.62 show
122
that the column buckled more on the south side than on the north side. Shear lips and
necking indicated ductile failure of the steel tube.
In summary, specimen failure was controlled by three major factors:
• Debonding of the SIMCON jacket.
• Cracking of the SIMCON jacket above the doubler plates.
• Limited outwards buckling of the steel tube above the doubler plates.
Figure 5.42 – First cracks occurred on the north side of column specimen in the cycle 17
Figure 5.43 – First cracks occurred on the south side of column specimen in the cycle 17
123
Figure 5.44 – Major crack on the north side that will control the failure
Figure 5.45 – Major crack on the south side that will control the failure
124
Figure 5.46 – Vertical cracks occurred in the compression zone (north side)
Figure 5.47 – Two major cracks joined on the west side of the column
125
Figure 5.48 – Crack pattern on the north side at the peak load of cycle 29
Figure 5.49 – Crack pattern on the south side during the cycle 34
126
Figure 5.50 – Crack pattern on the north-east side during the cycle 34
Figure 5.51 – Significant deformation of the column specimen during the cycle 34
127
Figure 5.52 – The test was stopped during the cycle 37 due to column instability
Figure 5.53 – Crack through the SIMCON jacket and steel tube on the north side
128
Figure 5.54 – Northwest side of the column specimen in the failure region
Figure 5.55 – West side of the column specimen in the failure region
129
Figure 5.56 – Southwest side of the column specimen in the failure region
Figure 5.57 – South side of the column specimen in the failure region
130
Figure 5.58 – Southeast side of the column specimen in the failure region
Figure 5.59 – East side of the column specimen in the failure region
131
Figure 5.60 – Northeast side of the column specimen in the failure region
Figure 5.61 – After the failure the bottom part of the column specimen was examined
132
Figure 5.62 – After the failure the top part of the column specimen was examined
133
6 DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
The experimental data obtained from the HP-FRC column specimen test are further
analyzed and discussed in this section, as well as compared to results obtained from the
reference CFT specimen (Punchin, 2001). The various terms used in the analysis are
defined next.
Ductility
Ductility is ability of a structure or member to sustain several inelastic excursions without

significant loss of load carrying capacity and stiffness degradation. A properly designed
earthquake-resistant structure is considered to be ductile. Ductility is defined as the ratio
of deformation at the point of interest and yield deformation. In this investigation, yield
deformation was defined as deformation at the onset of steel yielding, where strain at
steel yielding was determined from the steel coupon tests.
Depending on the type of deformation, ductility can be defined at different levels:

material, section, member and system. Curvature ductility, µφ, is a section property, while
displacement ductility, µ∆, relates to the response of the entire member or system.
Presence of the axial load can significantly affect the ductility of columns.
Stiffness
Stiffness was determined from the load-displacement response of HP-FRC column

specimen. Stiffness was measured at three different stages during the test:
1) initial uncracked specimen stiffness, Ki, measured at the onset of testing,
2) stiffness at yielding, Ky, and,
3) secant or effective stiffness, Ke, obtained from the elastic cycles.
134
The average slope of the lines joining positive and negative peaks of the first three cycles
in the load-displacement response represents the initial uncracked stiffness, Ki, of the
column specimen.
Stiffness at yielding, Ky, was calculated using the following expression:
Ky = Fy / ∆y
where Fy is load at yielding and ∆y is displacement at the onset of steel yielding.
Effective stiffness, Ke, was calculated as the slope of the line joining positive and
negative peaks of elastic cycles in the load-displacement response.
Dissipated Energy
The amount of energy dissipated by the HP-FRC column specimen was calculated from
the load-displacement, F-∆, response. The energy dissipation in a cycle i, Ei, was
calculated as the area enclosed within the ith F-∆ hysteretic loop:
Ei = ∫ F d∆
The amount of energy dissipated within a given zone of the HP-FRC column specimen
was calculated from the moment-curvature, M-φ, response of that zone. In this zone the
energy dissipated within a cycle i, Ei, was defined as the area enclosed within the ith M-φ
hysteretic loop multiplied by the height of the corresponding zone:
Ei = h ∫ M dφ
135
The total energy dissipated, Ehyst, during the test was defined as:
Ehyst = Σ Ei
Normalized dissipated energy, EN, is defined for comparison purposes (Paultre, Légeron
and Mongeau, 2001):
1
EN = Σ Ei
Fmax ∆ y
where Fmax is the maximum applied load and ∆y is the yield displacement.
Work and damage index
Also for comparison purposes work index, IW, and damage index, DEW, were introduced
and may be used to assess the energy dissipation and inelastic deformation capabilities of
the specimen. The following relationship was used in evaluating the work index (Gosain,
Brown and Jirsa, 1977):
Fi ∆ i
IW = Σ
Fmax ∆ y
where Fi and ∆i are peak load and displacement in the ith cycle, respectively.
The damage index, DEW, combines the cyclic dissipated energy and the elastic energy,
and is defined as (Ehsani and Wright, 1990):
2
1  K e ,i  ∆ i 
DEW = Σ Ei   
Fmax ∆ y K  ∆ 
 y  y 
136
where Ke,i and ∆i are secant stiffness and corresponding peak displacement in the ith
cycle, respectively.
Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratio
To assess the inelastic response of the system, the equivalent viscous damping ratio
(EVDR) was also used. The EVDR consists of viscous and hysteretic component. For
each system the viscous damping is basically always a constant value. The hysteretic
damping increases with an increase in the amount of dissipated energy. The hysteretic
damping ratio was defined as (Jacobsen, 1930):
ξhyst = (2 / π) R
where R is the ratio of energies dissipated by a real system and rigid-perfectly-plastic

(RPP) system, as shown in Figure 6.1. It is assumed that the energy dissipated by the RPP
system is due to sinusoidal motion. Hysteretic damping relationship, expressed as
hysteretic damping ratio versus displacement ductility, was used to analyze the test
results. An increase in hysteretic damping ratio with an increase in displacement ductility
indicates that more energy is being dissipated and that hysteresis loops are getting fuller.
137
Hysteretic Damping Ratio
A1 = area of real loop
R = A1 /A2
Load
ξ = (2/π ) R
A2 = area of R-P-P loop
Displacement
Figure 6.1 – Definition of hysteretic damping ratio
6.1 Analysis on HP-FRC Column Specimen Behavior
The load carrying capacity of the column specimen was governed by the flexural
response of the column region 1.50 in (3.81 cm) above the doubler plates, i.e., 71.375 in
(181.29 cm) below the load axis. This is the region where debonding of the SIMCON
jacket occurred first followed by formation of the plastic hinge in the later cycles. The
HS-LWA FRC core prevented inward buckling and the SIMCON jacket postponed
outward buckling up to the point when debonding and significant cracking of the
SIMCON jacket occurred. There were no shear studs at the location where debonding
occurred. Shear studs were omitted in the region above the doubler plates on the north
and south side to avoid ripping of the steel tube through the shear stud holes observed
138
during testing of the reference specimen (Punchin, 2001). The confinement of the HS-
LWA FRC core was not “activated” because the core behaved elastically throughout
testing and thus the lateral expansion of the HS-LWA FRC core was not significant. The
confinement of the HS-LWA FRC core would be certainly activated if the axial load was
applied. The local buckling and ripping of the steel tube resulted in the overall failure of
the HP-FRC at the displacement of 4.40 ∆y, which corresponded to 6.1 % story drift.
6.1.1 Ductility
The displacements at yielding, ultimate and failure conditions were 1.079 in (27.41 mm),
2.373 in (60.27 mm), and 4.754 in (120.75 mm), respectively. Similarly, the story drifts
at yielding, ultimate and failure conditions were 1.4 %, 3.1 %, and 6.1 %, respectively.
Load carrying capacity decreased after debonding of the SIMCON jacket occurred. The
anticipated ultimate load was not reached because of the debonding. In addition,
debonding caused the premature failure of the column specimen and the greater values of
displacement ductility at ultimate and failure condition were not achieved. Figure 6.2
shows the load-displacement envelope and resulting displacement ductility. The resulting
displacement ductility of the column specimen at ultimate and at failure was 2.20 and
4.40, respectively.
139
Displacement Ductility
80000
Ultimate
60000
Yielding Failure
40000
20000
Load [lb]
∆ /∆ = 2.20
ult yield
-20000
∆ /∆ = 4.40
fail yield
-40000
Experimental Data
Envelope
-60000
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement [in]
Figure 6.2 – Load-displacement envelope and displacement ductility
Based on the moment-curvature response of zone G, curvature ductility at ultimate was

calculated to be equal to 3.72. Curvature ductility at failure was not calculated because
the potentiometer that measured deformation in the zone G was removed before the
failure so the maximum curvature ductility calculated from the recorded data was 21.03.
Figure 6.3 shows the moment-curvature envelope for zone G and resulting curvature
ductility at yielding. Moment-curvature envelopes of all zones are shown in Figure 6.4.
Yielding curvature was reached in the bottom three zones, E, F and G.
140
Curvature Ductility
Zone G of the HP-FRC Column Specimen
5000
Ultimate
Yielding
Moment [kip-in]
φ /φ = 3.72
ult yield
Experimental Data
Envelope
-5000
-0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 6.3 – Moment-curvature envelope of the zone G
Moment-Curvature Response
Envelope - all zones
5000
4500
4000
Zone A
3500
Moment [kip-in]
Zone B
3000 Zone C
2500 Zone D
2000 Zone E
1500 Zone F
1000 Zone G
500
0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 6.4 – Moment-curvature envelopes of all zones
141
6.1.2 Stiffness
The initial uncracked stiffness, Ki, was calculated to be equal to 71.52 kip/in (12.53
kN/mm). The stiffness at yielding, Ky = 47.61 kip/in (8.34 kN/mm), was 33.4 % lower
than the initial stiffness. Figure 6.5 shows the degradation in the column stiffness
measured from cycle 12, just before reaching the yield point. After debonding of the
SIMCON jacket occurred during the cycle 21, the effective stiffness decreased for 13.9 %
and it remained very stable until specimen failure. The effective stiffness measured in
cycle 36 represents the stiffness of the column specimen just before its failure.
Stiffness Degradation
60
49.05
50 45.73 44.87
38.64 37.26
stiffness [kip/in]
40 35.43
30 25.12
20
10
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.5 – Stiffness degradation
6.1.3 Energy Dissipation
Discussion of the test results will be provided for the “half cycles” and “full and
estimated cycles”. “Half cycle” can be described as a part of the cycle from zero load to
peak load, when the column specimen was pushed in the south direction, and back to zero
load. For cycles 13 to 23, except for elastic cycles 16 and 20, the test results were known
142
for the previously described “half cycle” only and other part of the cycle was
approximated based on the results for full cycles 0 to 12 and 24 to 37. From these
measured full cycles the ratio between dissipate energy of the “half cycle” and full cycle
was obtained. For cycles 13 to 23, the results for analytically determined other part of the
cycle were obtained by multiplying the “half cycle” and previously defined ratio. Thus,
knowing the results for full cycles and estimating the results for cycles 13 to 23 “full and
estimated cycles” were obtained.
Energy dissipated by the entire HP-FRC column specimen for “half cycles” and “full and
estimated cycles” is shown in Figures 6.6 and 6.7. After debonding of SIMCON jacket
occurred during the cycle 21, the amount of energy dissipation in subsequent cycles 22
and 23 significantly decreased. Beyond cycle 25 the column dissipated increasing energy
until it failed. A maximum dissipated energy of 265 kip-in (29.9 kNm) for “half cycles”
and 506 kip-in (57.2 kNm) for “full and estimated cycles” was reached during cycle 34.
Figures 6.8 and 6.9 show the histograms of cumulative energy dissipation of the entire
column specimen. A total energy dissipated by the entire HP-FRC column specimen was
2,260 kip-in (256 kNm) for “half cycles” and 4,560 kip-in (515 kNm) for “full and
estimated cycles”.
143
Energy Dissipation by Cycle
300
250
200
energy [kip-in]
SIM CON jacket

150 debonding
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.6 – Dissipated energy in each cycle for “half cycles”
600
500
400 SIM CON jacket

energy [kip-in]
debonding
300
200
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.7 – Dissipated energy in each cycle for “full and estimated cycles”
144
Cumulative Energy Dissipation
2500
2000
energy [kip-in]
1500
SIM CON jacket

1000 debonding
500
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.8 – Cumulative dissipated energy for “half cycles”
5000
4500
4000
3500
energy [kip-in]
3000
2500 SIM CON jacket
2000 debonding
1500
1000
500
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.9 – Cumulative dissipated energy for “full and estimated cycles”
145
Data for the zone G beyond cycle 32 were not available because the potentiometer that
measured deformation in the zone G on the north side of the column specimen was
removed during the cycle 32. Energy dissipated in each zone of the HP-FRC column
specimen for “half cycles” and “full and estimated cycles” is shown in Figures 6.10 to
6.23. Similar trend in energy dissipation is apparent within the critical zones E, F and G
and of the entire specimen.
Comparison of energy dissipated between each zone during the test for “half cycles” and
“full and estimated cycles” is shown in Figures 6.24 to 6.25. Figures show that a plastic
hinge started to develop, as indicated by the higher level of dissipated energy, in zones E,
F and G. However, after debonding of SIMCON jacket occurred during the cycle 21, the
amount of energy dissipated within the zone G significantly increased comparing to
zones F and G, as shown in Figures 6.26 and 6.27. Those figures show the energy
dissipation within the critical zones E, F and G from cycle 25 to the failure of the column
specimen. Thus, instead of spreading of the plastic hinge throughout the bottom three
zones, E, F, and G, debonding of the SIMCON jacket caused the localization of the
plastic hinge in zone G only.
Figures 6.28 to 6.41 show histograms of the cumulative energy dissipation for each zone
of the column specimen. Comparison of cumulative energy dissipated between each zone
during the test for “half cycles” and “full and estimated cycles” is shown in Figures 6.42
to 6.43. A total energy dissipated by zones A, B, C, D, E, F, and G for “half cycles” was
2.51 kip-in (0.28 kNm), 10.39 kip-in (1.17 kNm), 13.19 kip-in (1.49 kNm), 23.73 kip-in
(2.68 kNm), 64.2 kip-in (7.25 kNm), 127 kip-in (14.4 kNm), 571 kip-in (64.5 kNm),
respectively, and for “full and estimated cycles” 3.74 kip-in (0.42 kNm), 18.17 kip-in
(2.05 kNm), 23.14 kip-in (2.62 kNm), 45.8 kip-in (5.18 kNm), 127 kip-in (14.3 kNm),
191 kip-in (21.6 kNm), 958 kip-in (108.3 kNm), respectively. Histograms that indicate
the total energy dissipated by zones for “half cycles” and “full and estimated cycles” are
shown in Figures 6.44 to 6.45.
146
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone A
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
energy [kip-in]
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.10 – Dissipated energy within the zone A for “half cycles”
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone A
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
energy [kip-in]
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.11 – Dissipated energy within the zone A for “full and estimated cycles”
147
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone B
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
energy [kip-in]
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.12 – Dissipated energy within the zone B for “half cycles”
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone B
2.5
2.0
energy [kip-in]
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.13 – Dissipated energy within the zone B for “full and estimated cycles”
148
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone C
1.2
1.0
0.8
cycle
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
energy [kip-in]
Figure 6.14 – Dissipated energy within the zone C for “half cycles”
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone C
3.0
2.5
2.0
cycle
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
energy [kip-in]
Figure 6.15 – Dissipated energy within the zone C for “full and estimated cycles”
149
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone D
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
energy [kip-in]
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.16 – Dissipated energy within the zone D for “half cycles”
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone D
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
energy [kip-in]
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.17 – Dissipated energy within the zone D for “full and estimated cycles”
150
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone E
4
energy [kip-in]
0
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.18 – Dissipated energy within the zone E for “half cycles”
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone E
12
10
8
energy [kip-in]
0
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.19 – Dissipated energy within the zone E for “full and estimated cycles”
151
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone F
20
18
16
14
energy [kip-in]
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
cycle
Figure 6.20 – Dissipated energy within the zone F for “half cycles”
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone F
20
18
16
14
energy [kip-in]
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
cycle
Figure 6.21 – Dissipated energy within the zone F for “full and estimated cycles”
152
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone G
120
100
80
energy [kip-in]
60
40
20
0
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.22 – Dissipated energy within the zone G for “half cycles”
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zone G
180
160
140
120
energy [kip-in]
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.23 – Dissipated energy within the zone G for “full and estimated cycles”
153
120
100
Zone A
80 Zone B
energy [kip-in]
SIMCON jacket Zone C

60 debonding Zone D
Zone E
40 Zone F
Zone G
20
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
cycle
Figure 6.24 – Dissipated energy within all zones for “half cycles”
180
160
140
Zone A
SIMCON jacket
120 Zone B
energy [kip-in]
debonding
100 Zone C
Zone D
80 Zone E
60 Zone F
Zone G
40
20
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
cycle
Figure 6.25 – Dissipated energy within all zones for “full and estimated cycles”
154
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zones E,F, and G
120
100
80
energy [kip-in]
Zone E
60 Zone F
Zone G
40
20
0
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
cycle
Figure 6.26 – Dissipated energy within zones E, F and G for “half cycles”
Energy Dissipation by Cycle - Zones E,F, and G
180
160
140
120
energy [kip-in]
100 Zone E
Zone F
80 Zone G
60
40
20
0
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
cycle
Figure 6.27 – Dissipated energy by zones E, F and G for “full and estimated cycles”
155
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone A
3.00
2.50
2.00
energy [kip-in]
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.28 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone A for “half cycles”
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone A
4.00
3.50
3.00
energy [kip-in]
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.29 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone A for “full and estimated
cycles”
156
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone B
12.00
10.00
8.00
energy [kip-in]
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.30 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone B for “half cycles”
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone B
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
energy [kip-in]
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.31 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone B for “full and estimated
cycles”
157
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone C
14.00
12.00
10.00
energy [kip-in]
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.32 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone C for “half cycles”
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone C
25.00
20.00
energy [kip-in]
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.33 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone C for “full and estimated
cycles”
158
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone D
25.00
20.00
energy [kip-in]
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.34 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone D for “half cycles”
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone D
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
energy [kip-in]
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.35 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone D for “full and estimated
cycles”
159
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone E
70.00
60.00
50.00
energy [kip-in]
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.36 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone E for “half cycles”
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone E
140.00
120.00
100.00
energy [kip-in]
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.37 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone E for “full and estimated
cycles”
160
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone F
140.00
120.00
100.00
energy [kip-in]
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.38 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone F for “half cycles”
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone F
250.00
200.00
energy [kip-in]
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.39 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone F for “full and estimated
cycles”
161
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone G
600.00
500.00
400.00
energy [kip-in]
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.40 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone G for “half cycles”
Cumulative Energy Dissipation - Zone G
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
energy [kip-in]
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.41 – Cumulative dissipated energy within the zone G for “full and estimated
cycles”
162
600
500
Zone A
400 Zone B
energy [kip-in]
Zone C
300 Zone D
Zone E
200 SIMCON jacket Zone F
debonding Zone G
100
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
cycle
Figure 6.42 – Cumulative dissipated energy within all zones for “half cycles”
1200
1000
Zone A
800 Zone B
energy [kip-in]
Zone C
600 Zone D
Zone E
SIMCON jacket
400 Zone F
debonding
Zone G
200
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
cycle
Figure 6.43 – Cumulative dissipated energy within all zones for “full and estimated
cycles”
163
Total Dissipated Energy by Zones
600
500
400
energy [kip-in]
300
200
100
0
A B C D E F G
zone
Figure 6.44 – Total dissipated energy by all zones for “half cycles”
Total Dissipated Energy by Zones
1200
1000
800
energy [kip-in]
600
400
200
0
A B C D E F G
zone
Figure 6.45 – Total dissipated energy by all zones for “full and estimated cycles”
164
Histograms of the normalized dissipated energy, work index and damage index for “half
cycles” and “full and estimated cycles” of the entire column specimen are shown in
Figures 6.46 to 6.51. The values of normalized dissipated energy, work index and
damage index for “half cycles” were 31.8, 43.9, and 72.1, respectively, while for “full
and estimated cycles” those values were 64.1, 43.3, and 151.6, respectively. Because
those values are used for comparison purposes and they were not calculated for CFT
reference specimen, they will be used for comparison in future investigations.
Normalized Dissipated Energy
35
30
25
normalized energy
20
15 SIM CON jacket

debonding
10
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.46 – Normalize dissipated energy for “half cycles”
165
Normalized Dissipated Energy
70
60
50
normalized energy
40
30 SIM CON jacket

debonding
20
10
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.47 – Normalized dissipated energy for “full and estimated cycles”
Work Index
50
45
40
35
work index
30 SIM CON jacket

25 debonding
20
15
10
5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.48 – Work index for “half cycles”
166
Work Index
50
45
40
35
work index
30 SIM CON jacket

25 debonding
20
15
10
5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.49 – Work index for “full and estimated cycles”
Damage Index
80
70
60
damage index
50
40
30 SIM CON jacket

debonding
20
10
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.50 – Damage index for “half cycles”
167
Damage Index
160
140
120
damage index
100
80
60 SIM CON jacket

debonding
40
20
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
cycle
Figure 6.51 – Damage index for “full and estimated cycles”
6.1.4 Hysteretic Damping Ratio
Relationship between hysteretic damping ratio and displacement ductility of the HP-FRC
column specimen for “half cycles” is presented in Table 6.1 and Figure 6.52. Hysteretic
damping ratio increases with the increase in displacement ductility which indicates the
increasing energy dissipation. The energy dissipated by the RPP system was calculated
based on the “half cycles”.
ξhyst µ∆
5.78 0.88
8.90 1.33
12.65 1.75
17.82 2.20
29.25 2.64
35.12 3.59
41.01 4.40
Table 6.1 – Hysteretic damping ratio versus displacement ductility for “half cycles”
168
Hysteretic Damping Ratio
vs Displacement Ductility
45.00
40.00
hysteretic damping ratio [%] 35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00 SIM CON jacket

debonding
10.00
5.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
displacement ductility
Figure 6.52 – Hysteretic damping ratio versus displacement ductility for “half cycles”
6.2 Comparison to CFT Reference Specimen
Envelopes of the load-displacement responses are shown in Figure 6.53. HP-FRC column
specimen experienced, as expected, greater ultimate load than CFT reference specimen,
65.99 kip (293.5 kN) comparing to 55.75 kip (248.0 kN). The post peak behavior of HP-
FRC specimen, after debonding of SIMCON jacket took place, was similar to the
behavior of reference specimen towards the end of testing. This indicates the contribution
of the SIMCON jacket on ultimate load. Also, HP-FRC column specimen reached larger
yield and ultimate displacement than reference specimen. HP-FRC specimen experienced
larger ultimate displacement because SIMCON jacket postponed the outwards buckling
of the steel tube. However, CFT reference specimen reached higher level of displacement
ductility at ultimate and failure because the SIMCON jacket of the HP-FRC column
specimen debonded in the early stage of the test. The displacement ductility at ultimate
and failure of the CFT reference specimen was 7.73 and 9.67, respectively. These values
169
are 3.51 and 2.20 times larger comparing to displacement ductility values at ultimate and
failure obtained for HP-FRC column specimen.
Load-Displacement Response
Comparison of the Envelopes
70000 Failure - CFT
60000
Yielding
50000
Failure - HP-FRC
40000
Load [lb]
30000
20000
CFT Reference Specimen

10000 HP-FRC Column Specimen
-10000
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement [in]
Figure 6.53 – Comparison of the load-displacement response envelopes between

CFT reference specimen and HP-FRC column specimen
Figures 6.54 to 6.56 show the comparison of the moment-curvature responses between
two specimens in the bottom three zones, E, F, and G. Comparing the moment curvature
responses of HP-FRC and CFT reference specimen, the contribution of the SIMCON
jacket on the maximum moment is also noticeable. However, due to SIMCON jacket
debonding, the greater curvature was reached within zones E and F of the CFT reference
specimen because the plastic hinge spread throughout wider region than in the case of
HP-FRC specimen. After debonding of SIMCON jacket took place, the plastic hinge was
localized within the zone G and because of that HP-FRC specimen reached greater
170
curvature in this zone than CFT reference specimen. Also, after debonding of SIMCON
jacket took place, the moment-curvature response of two specimens within zone G was
very similar. Maximum curvature ductility of the HP-FRC specimen calculated from the
available data was 21.03, while the ultimate curvature ductility of the reference specimen
was 14.73.
Moment - Curvature Response of the Zone E

HP-FRC column specimen vs. CFT reference specimen
4000
3000
2000
Moment [kip-in]
1000
-1000
-2000 CFT Reference

HP-FRC
-3000
-0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 6.54 – Comparison of the moment-curvature responses of the zone E between

171
Moment - Curvature Response of the Zone F
6000
4000
Moment [kip-in]
2000
-2000
CFT Reference
HP-FRC
-4000
-0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 6.55 – Comparison of the moment-curvature responses of the zone F between

172
Moment - Curvature Response of the Zone G
6000
4000
2000
Moment [kip-in]
-2000
CFT Reference
HP-FRC
-4000
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 6.56 – Comparison of the moment-curvature responses of the zone G between

In order to compare stiffness degradation between two specimens, the relationship

between stiffness and drift ratio, after which the stiffness degradation was evaluated, was
used as shown in Figure 6.57. As expected, the stiffness of the HP-FRC specimen, before
debonding of the SIMCON jacket took place, was greater than stiffness of the reference
specimen. After debonding occurred at approximately 3 % drift ratio, the stiffness of both
specimens was almost the same. Results indicate that beyond 3 % drift ratio the stiffness
173
of the reference specimen was slightly greater than HP-FRC specimen. The reference
specimen failed at approximately 5 % drift ratio, while the HP-FRC specimen failed at
6.1 % drift ratio.
Stiffness Degradation
50
45 HP-FRC
CFT Reference
40
35
Stiffness [kip/in]
SIMCON jacket
30 debonding
25
20
15
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift ratio after which the stiffness degradation was evaluated [%]
Figure 6.57 – Comparison of the stiffness degradation between

Energy dissipation vs. drift ratio relationship was used to compare energy dissipated by
both specimens, as shown in Figures 6.58 to 6.61. The amount of energy dissipated
within three consecutive cycles of interest was presented as energy dissipated at the
certain drift ratio.
174
Even tough the load displacement response of both specimens were similar, after
debonding of SIMCON jacket took place, HP-FRC specimen dissipated larger amount of
energy than CFT reference specimen because it reached greater drift ratio as a result of
contribution of the SIMCON jacket. A larger amount of the maximum dissipated energy
by the entire specimen during a single cycle was calculated for HP-FRC column
specimen, 506 kip-in (57.2 kNm) comparing to 437 kip-in (49.4 kNm) for measured for
the CFT reference specimen. HP-FRC column specimen dissipated more energy than
CFT reference specimen during the entire test, 4,560 kip-in (515 kNm) and 2,850 kip-in
(322 kNm), respectively.
Energy Dissipation vs Drift Ratio

Entire Specimen
1400
1200
1000
Energy dissipation [kip-in]
800
600
SIMCON jacket
400 debonding
200 HP-FRC
CFT reference
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift ratio [%]
Figure 6.58 – Comparison of the energy dissipation between

175
At the lower drift ratio, the reference specimen dissipated more energy within zones G
and F than HP-FRC specimen. This is because reference specimen started to deteriorate
at the lower drift ratio than HP-FRC specimen. Beyond 3 % drift ratio there is no data
available for zone G of the reference specimen, as well as beyond 4 % drift ratio for zone
F because of the instrumentation failure. However, since trend of the energy dissipation
within zones E and F was similar and plastic hinge spread within zones F and G, the
energy dissipated within zone G should follow the same trend. This led to a conclusion
that HP-FRC dissipated more energy than CFT reference specimen within the zone G and
less energy in zones E and F. Primarily this was because the formation of plastic hinge
was localized within zone G of the HP-FRC specimen after debonding of the SIMCON
jacket occurred at approximately 3 % drift ratio. Energy dissipation of the zone E shows
that, before SIMCON jacket debonding took place, more energy was dissipated by the
HP-FRC specimen in that zone. This indicates that before debonding took place the
plastic hinge was started to develop in wider region in HP-FRC specimen than it
developed in CFT reference specimen.
176
Zone E
50
40
SIMCON jacket
debonding
30
20
10
HP-FRC
CFT reference
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift ratio [%]
Figure 6.59 – Comparison of the energy dissipation within zone E between

177
Zone F
250
200
150
100 SIMCON jacket

debonding
HP-FRC
CFT reference
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Drift ratio [%]
Figure 6.60 – Comparison of the energy dissipation within zone F between

178
Zone G
500
400
300 SIMCON jacket

debonding
200
100 HP-FRC
CFT reference
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift ratio [%]
Figure 6.61 – Comparison of the energy dissipation within zone G between

6.3 Comparison to Analytical Prediction
The analytical predictions were based on a finite element analysis. The analytical model
assumes the perfect bond between HS-LWA FRC core and steel tube, as well as between
the steel tube and SIMCON jacket. The specifics of analytical model and finite element
analysis are beyond the scope of this thesis and will not be discussed further. The finite
element analysis was performed by collaborators at the University of Hannover,
Germany, using a research finite element analysis program FEAP. A multiaxial plasticity
model implemented into the finite element program and used for predicting results was
179
developed at NCSU (Brzezicki, Hassan, Krstulovic-Opara and Brandt, 1999; Krstulovic-
Opara and Wriggers, 2001). Figure 6.62 shows the envelopes of the load-displacement
response obtained from experimental data and using the numerical prediction. Moment-
curvature envelopes for zones D, E, F, and, G obtained from the experimental data are
compared to envelopes obtained from the analytical prediction in Figures 6.63 to 6.66.
Load-Displacement Response
70000
60000
50000
40000
Load [lb]
30000
20000
10000 Analytical Prediction

Experimental Data
-10000
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement [in]
Figure 6.62 – Comparison of the load-displacement response between analytical

prediction and experimentally obtained data
180
Moment-Curvature Response - Zone D
3500
3000
2500
2000
Moment [kip-in]
1500
Analytical Prediction
1000
Experimental Data
500
-500
-5 -5
-5 10 0 5 10 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 6.63 – Comparison of the moment-curvature response of zone D between

analytical prediction and experimentally obtained data
181
Moment-Curvature Response - Zone E
4000
3000
2000
Moment [kip-in]
Analytical Prediction
1000
Experimental Data
-1000
-0.0001 0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 6.64 – Comparison of the moment-curvature response of zone E between

182
Moment-Curvature Response - Zone F
5000
4000
3000
Moment [kip-in]
2000

Experimental Data
-1000
-0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 6.65 – Comparison of the moment-curvature response of zone F between

183
Moment-Curvature Response - Zone G
5000
4000
3000
Moment [kip-in]
2000

Experimental Data
-1000
-0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Curvature [1/in]
Figure 6.66 – Comparison of the moment-curvature response of zone G between

A good agreement between the experimental results and the numerical prediction exists
almost throughout the entire elastic range.
184
7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Summary
The focus of this study was to evaluate behavior of SIMCON jacketed high strength
lightweight aggregate fiber reinforced concrete filled steel tubes for seismic resistance.
Adequately confined HS-LWA concrete is ideally suited for seismic resistant members as
shown in previous research (Shah and Ahmad, 1994; El-Dash and Ahmad, 1999; El-
Dash, 1995). According to their research, HS-LWA can be used in seismic applications
as long as closely spaced, high strength interlocking spirals are used for confinement. In
this research, fibers and steel tube were used for confinement instead of interlocking
spirals. Fibers were added to the HS-LWA concrete to maximize confinement effects,
column strength and ductility. Casting concrete within the steel tube prevented inward
buckling of the tube, while at the same time the tube acted as both permanent formwork
and external confinement which led to a reduced cost of construction. Furthermore,
SIMCON column jacket prevented outward buckling of the steel tube up to the point
when debonding took place. Even tough the primary purpose of the SIMCON jacket was
to increase the strength and provide additional energy dissipation mechanism under
extreme earthquake loading, it also increases the fire resistance and durability of the
member. Due to the fiber mat feature of SIMCON, used and deteriorated SIMCON jacket
can be relatively easily replaced after the end of seismic loading.
The objective of this investigation was to develop and test if such a system tested in
flexure only would be capable of dissipating energy and providing adequate ductility.
The absence of axial load led to a more critical loading condition for the column
specimen. The HP-FRC column specimen was subjected to a static-reversed cyclic load
up to the displacement of 4.40 ∆y when a significant loss in column moment capacity
occurred. One elastic cycle with amplitude of 75 % yield displacement between inelastic
cycle sets was used to analyze the stiffness degradation of the column. Debonding of the
SIMCON jacket took place at the column displacement of 2.20 ∆y. The column behavior
185
was characterized by wide hysteretic loops even after debonding of the SIMCON jacket
happened. The obtained results were compared to CFT reference specimen and analytical
prediction.
7.2 Conclusions
Conclusions are presented regarding the experimentally evaluated HP-FRC column

response, comparison between HP-FRC column and CFT reference specimen, and
comparison between experimentally obtained data and analytical predictions of the HP-
FRC column response.
The following remarks can be made from the results of this investigation:
• Ductility level was not as good as it was expected because of the debonding of
SIMCON jacket but the column reached respectable maximum displacement of
4.754 in (120.75 mm) which corresponded to a story drift of 6.1 %.
• The HP-FRC column developed its yield moment of 3,550 kip-in (401 kNm) at
1.4 % story drift ratio. Maximum flexural strength of 4,550 kip-in (514 kNm) was
reached at the horizontal displacement of 2.373 in (60.27 mm) or 3.1 % story
drift.
• The hysteretic loops showed good energy dissipation for the column.
• A plastic hinge started to develop throughout the bottom three zones, E, F and G,
but debonding of the SIMCON jacket caused the localization of plastic hinge
within the zone G.
• Good foundation detailing ensured that full moment capacity of the HP-FRC
column was developed during testing.
The failure of the composite member was primarily caused by the SIMCON jacket
debonding. This led to a severe cracking of the SIMCON jacket above the doubler plates
where it debonded from the steel tube. As a final result, the outwards buckling of the steel
tube above the doubler plate forced the column to fail. The column buckled more on the
186
south side than on the north side. Shear lips and necking indicated the ductile failure of
the steel tube. Even though the specimen failed as a result of SIMCON jacket debonding,
the column was able to dissipated significant amount of energy. The plastic hinge was
developed in the limited region above the doubler plates and column specimen was not
able to achieve higher level of ductility because of the SIMCON jacket debonding.
However, despite the premature failure, the achieved ductility reflected in the 6.1 % story
drift ratio and displacement ductility of 4.40 at column failure was still quite satisfactory.
ACI-ASCE Committee 441 cites 4.0 % story drift ratio as a very good level of ductility
(ACI-ASCE Committee 441, 1997) Similarly, in terms of the displacement ductility, a
column is generally considered ductile if displacement ductility ranges from 4 to 6
(Légeron and Paultre, 2000). The story drift ratio is believed to be a better parameter for
comparison purposes than displacement ductility because of the lack of general
acceptance of a common definition for the yielding of composite member.
Comparison showed that HP-FRC column specimen experienced greater ultimate load
than CFT reference specimen which indicates the contribution of SIMCON jacket on the
load capacity. HP-FRC column reached larger yield and ultimate displacement because
SIMCON jacket postponed the outwards buckling of the steel tube. However, due to
debonding of the SIMCON jacket in the early stage of the test, the HP-FRC specimen has
not reached the higher level of displacement ductility at ultimate and failure than CFT
reference specimen. On the other hand, despite the debonding of the SIMCON jacket,
HP-FRC column specimen dissipated larger amount of energy throughout the entire test
than CFT reference specimen.
The results of the comparison between experimental and analytical data showed
reasonably good agreement within the elastic range, while in the inelastic range these
results diverge.
187
7.3 Recommendations
The reduction of the member weight leads to lower seismically induced forces and
reduced column sizes. Besides good seismic performance of CFT systems with high
strength lightweight aggregate fiber reinforced concrete, speed of construction, stay-in-
place formwork for the concrete core, and substitution of transversal reinforcement with
fibers are advantages that lower the construction costs. Gained savings are significantly
greater than the added cost of the higher quality concrete (Mehta and Monteiro, 1993;
ACI Committee 213, 1987; Moreno, 1986; Holm and Bremner, 1990). In general, higher
strength-to-weight ratios lead to superior benefits.
Although the investigated SIMCON jacketed HS-LWA FRC filled steel tube showed
signs of good seismic behavior, additional investigations should be conducted. Primarily
better solution for bonding should be provided such that bonding exists up to a higher
loading level. Also, ripping of the steel tube should be avoided which is possible to occur
when using shear studs.
Further investigation should include the effect of axial compressive load. The flexural
capacity of conventionally reinforced concrete columns is increased by increase in axial
compressive load up to certain level. On the other hand an increase in axial load has an
adverse effect on ductility of the conventionally reinforced concrete columns. It is
expected that axial compressive load will not adversely affect the ductility of CFT
column member because steel tube provides shear resistance and adequate confinement
of the entire concrete section of the column. Previous investigation showed that if the
axial compressive load is applied on both the concrete core and the steel tube, the
effectiveness of the concrete core confinement is reduced (Gardner and Jacobson, 1967).
It is recommended that only concrete core is axially loaded because confinement and
ductility are crucial column design factors.
188
In the design of the CFT column members for seismic applications it is desirable to use
the steel tube with a lower yield stress because it increases ductility of the member.
Additional work should be done on the analytical model to provide better agreement with
the experimental data, with the special attention on inelastic part of the specimen
response.
In the future investigation the choice of instrumentation and its set-up should be very
important. The instrumentation should be more reliable and data obtained from different
instruments should match better. Instrumentation set-up should be capable of measuring
confinement stresses directly from the core when axial compressive load is applied.
189
REFERENCES
Abdou, H. M.; Naaman, A. E.; and Wight, J. K., Cyclic Response of Reinforced Concrete
Connections Using Cast-in-Place SIFCON Matrix, Report No. UMCE 88-8, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, August 1988.
Aboutaha, R. S.; and Machado, R. I., “Seismic Resistance of Steel-Tubed High-Strength

Reinforced-Concrete Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 5, May
1999, pp. 485-494.
ACI Committee 213, “Guide for Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,” ACI 213R-
87, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1987.
ACI Committee 544, “Fiber Reinforced Concrete”, American Concrete International,

Farmington Hills, Michigan, May 1997.
ACI, “Manual of Concrete Practice,” Part 1–1991, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
Michigan, 1991.
ACI-ASCE Committee 441, “High-Strength Concrete Columns: State of the Art,” ACI
Journal, Vol. 94, No. 3, May – June 1997, pp. 323-335.
Balaguru, P. N.; and Shah, S. P., Fiber-Reinforced Cement Composites, McGraw-Hill,

New York, NY, 1992.
Barber, E.; Kennedy, S.; Kennedy, D. J. L.; and MacGregor, J., “Flexural Strength of
Concrete-Filled Steel Hollow Structural Sections,” 1987, pp. 493-509.
Bertero, V. V.; and Moustafa, S. E., “Steel- encased expansive cement concrete column,”
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. ST11, 1970, pp. 2267-2282.
190
Bruneau, M.; Uang, C.-M.; and Whittaker, A., Ductile Design of Steel Structures,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1998.
Brzezicki, J. M.; Hassan, T.; Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Brandt, A. M., “Multiaxial Model
for SIMCON-Based Composite Members Subjected to Combined Flexural and Shear
Forces,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Analytical Models and
New Concepts in Mechanics of Concrete Structures, Wroclaw, Poland, June 16, 1999, pp.
39-43.
Campione, G.; Mindess, S.; and Zingone, G., “Compressive Stress-Strain Behavior of
Normal and High-Strength Carbon-Fiber Concrete Reinforced with Steel Spirals,” ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 96, No. 1, January – February 1999, pp. 27-34.
Chopra, A. K., Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake

Engineering, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995.
Dallaire, É.; Aïtcin, P.-C.; and Lachemi, M., “A Fine Powder Mixed with Cement
Improves Corrosion Protection and Compressive Strength in a Canadian Pedestrian
Bridge,” Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 68, No. 1, January 1998, pp. 48-51.
Dallaire, É.; Aïtcin, P.-C.; and Lachemi, M., “Reactive Powder Concrete,” Construction
Canada, January – February 1998, pp. 6-9.
Ehsani, M. R.; and Wright, J. K., “Confinement Steel Requirements for Connections in
Ductile Frames,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 3, 1990, pp.
751-767.
El-Dash, K., Ductility of Lightweight High Strength Columns, Ph.D. Thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, December 1995.
191
El-Dash, K.; and Ahmad, S., “Model for Lightweight Concrete Columns Confined by
Single Hoop or Interlocking Double Spirals,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No. 12.
November – December 1999, pp. 883 - 892.
Foster, S. J., “On Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Columns: Cover Spalling, Steel
Fibers, and Ductility,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 4, July – August 2001, pp.
583-589.
Furlong, R. W., “Strength of Steel-Encased Concrete Beam-Columns,” Journal of the

Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. ST5, 1967, pp. 113-124.
Furlong, R. W., “Design of Steel-Encased Concrete Beam-Columns, part II,” Journal of

the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. ST1, 1968, pp. 195-220.
Furlong, R. W., “Design of Steel-Encased Concrete Beam-Columns,” Journal of the

Furlong, R. W., “Concrete Encased Steel Columns - Design Tables,” Journal of the
Furlong, R. W., “AISC Column Logic Makes Sense for Composite Columns, Too,” AISC
Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1976, pp. 1-7.
Furlong, R. W., “Comparison of AISC, SSRC, and ACI Specifications for Composite
Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. ST9, 1983, pp. 1784-
1803.
Furlong, R. W., “Column Rules of ACI, SSRC, and LRFD Compared,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. ST10, 1983, pp. 2375-2386.
192
Gardner, N. J.; and Jacobson, E. R., “Structural behavior of concrete filled steel tubes,”
Journal of American Concrete Institute, No. 64-38, 1967, pp. 404-413.
Gaylord, E. H.; Gaylord, C. N.; and Stallmeyer, J. E., Design of Steel Structures, Third
Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1992.
Gosain, K. N.; Brown, H. R.; and Jirsa, J. O., “Shear Requirements for Load Reversals on
RC Members,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. 7, 1977, pp.
1461-1476.
Hajjar, J. F.; Schiller, P. H.; and Molodan, A., “A Distributed Plasticity Model for
Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Beam-Columns with Interlayer Slip,” Engineering Structures,
Vol. 20, No. 8, 1998, pp. 663-676.
Holm, T. A.; and Bremner, T. W., “70 Years Performance Record for High Strength
Structural Lightweight Concrete,” Serviceability and Durability of Construction
Materials, Proceedings of the First Materials Engineering Congress, ASCE Materials
Engineering Division, Denver, August 1990, pp. 884 - 893.
Jacobsen, L. S., “Steady Forced Vibrations as Influenced by Damping,” ASME

Transactions, Vol. 52, 1930, pp. 169-181.
Kennedy, S.; and MacGregor J., End Connection Effects on the Strength of Concrete-
Filled HSS Beam-Columns, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1984.
Khaloo, A. R.; and Bozorgzadeh, A., “Influence of Confining Hoop Flexural Stiffness on
Behavior of High-Strength Lightweight Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 98, No. 5, September – October 2001, pp. 657-664.
193
Kilpatrick, A. E.; and Rangan, V. B., “Influence of Interfacial Shear Transfer on
Behavior of Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96,
No. 4, July – August 1999, pp. 642-648.
Knowles, R.B.; and Park, R., “Strength of Concrete Filled Steel Tubular Columns”,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. ST12, December 1969, pp. 2565-
2587.
Krstulovic-Opara, N., High - Performance Partially Cast-in-Place SMA - Prestressed

Composite Infrastructural Systems, National Science Foundation - SGER Program
(director: J. Scalzi), 1995, CMS-9632407.
Krstulovic-Opara, N., “Use of SIMCON in Seismic Retrofit and New Construction,”

Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on High Performance Fiber Reinforced
Cement Composites (HPFRCC 3), Mainz, Germany, May 16-19, 1999, pp. 629-649.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; Ahmad, S.; and Zia, P., High-Performance Composite

Infrastructural Systems Utilizing Advanced Cementitious Composites, (director: S.-C.
Liu), NSF Earthquake Hazard Mitigation, US-Japan Cooperative Research Program,
1996, CMS-9632443.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Al-Shannag, M. J., “Compressive Behavior of Slurry

Infiltrated Mat Concrete (SIMCON),” ACI Materials Journal, May – June 1999, pp. 367-
377.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Al-Shannag, M. J., “Slurry Infiltrated Mat Concrete

(SIMCON) - Based Shear Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Members,” ACI Structural
Journal, January – February 1999, pp. 105-114.
194
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; Dogan, E.; Uang, C.-M.; and Haghayeghi, A., “Flexural Behavior
of Composite R.C. - Slurry Infiltrated Fiber-Mat Concrete (SIMCON) Beams,” ACI
Structural Journal, September – October 1997, pp. 502-512.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; Haghayeghi, A.; and Uang, C.-M., “High Performance

Construction Material for Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation,” Extending the Lifespan of
Structures, IABSE Symposium, San Francisco, 1995, pp. 1453-1458.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Kotsovos, M. D., “Effect of Vertical Prestressing on the

Punching Failure,” Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 15, 1993, pp. 131-142.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; LaFave, J.; Dogan, E.; and Uang, C.-M., “Seismic Retrofit With
Discontinuous SIMCON Jackets,” HPFRC in Infrastructural Repair and Retrofit, ACI
Special Publication SP-185, 2000, pp. 141-185.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Malak, S., “Micromechanical Tensile Behavior of Slurry

Infiltrated Fiber Mat Concrete (SIMCON),” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 94, No. 5,
September - October 1997, pp. 373-384.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Malak, S., “Tensile Behavior of Slurry Infiltrated Mat
Concrete (SIMCON),” ACI Materials Journal, January – February 1997, pp. 39-46.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Naaman, A. E., Self-Stressing of Cement Composites Using

Shape Memory Alloys, Invention Disclosure, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1992.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Naaman, A. E., “Self-Stressing Fiber Composites,” ACI

Structural Journal, March – April 2000, pp. 335-344.
195
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; Punchin, J.; and Brezac, B., “High Strength Lightweight FRC
Filled Steel Tube Columns for Seismically Resistant High Performance Composite
Frames,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concrete Under Severe
Conditions of Environment and Loading – CONSEC 01, Vancouver, Canada, June 18-20,
2001, pp. 668-675.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Thiedeman, P. D., “Active Confinement of Concrete Members

with Self-Stressing Composites,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 97, No. 4, May – June
2000, pp. 297-308.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Toutanji, H., “Infrastructural Repair and Retrofit Using High
Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites,” High Performance Fiber
Reinforced Cement Composite, Naaman, A. E. and Reinhardt, H. W., editors ed.: E. & F.
Spon, Vol. 2, Chapter 11, 1995, pp. 367-386.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Uang, C.-M., Repair and Rehabilitation of Non-Ductile R.C.
Frames Using High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites, (director: S.-C.
Liu), NSF Earthquake Hazard Mitigation/BSC/ENG, Repair and Rehabilitation Program,
1993, CMS-9696030.
Krstulovic-Opara, N.; and Wriggers, P., “Self-Actuating Fiber Composites for Auto-
Adaptive Structures,” Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering
(SPIE) 8th International Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials, Newport Beach,
California, March 7, 2001.
Lambert-Aikhionbare, N.; and Tabsh, S. W., “Confinement of High-Strength Concrete

with Welded Wire Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 5, September –
October 2001, pp. 677-685.
196
Légeron, F.; and Paultre, P., “Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Columns under Cyclic
Flexure and Constant Axial Load,” ACI Structural Journal, July – August 2000, pp. 501-
601.
Lin, C.-H.; and Lee, F.-S., “Ductility of High-Performance Concrete Beams with High-
Strength Lateral Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 4, July – August
2001, pp. 600-608.
Lim, Y. M.; Wu, H.-C.; and Li., V. C., “Development of Flexural Composite Properties
and Dry Shrinkage Behavior of High-Performance Fiber Reinforced Cementitious
Composites at Early Stages,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 96, No. 1, January – February
1999, pp. 20-26.
Liu, D.; and Zhong S. T., “A New Structural System for High Buildings With CFST
Columns” Proceedings of the 6th ASCCS Conference on Steel-Concrete Composite
Structures, Los Angeles, California, March 2000, pp. 63-68.
Lu, Y. Q.; and Kennedy D. J. L., The Flexural Behavior of Concrete-Filled Hollow
Structural Sections, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada, 1992.
MacGregor, J. G., Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design, Third Edition, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
Mehta, P. K.; and Monteiro, P. J. M., Concrete: Structure, Properties, and Materials,
Second Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993.
Mei, H.; Kiousis, P. D.; Ehsanf, M. R.; and Saadatmanesh, H., “Confinement Effects on
High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 4, July – August 2001,
pp. 548-553.
197
Moreno, J., “Lightweight Concrete Ductility,” ACI Concrete International, November
1986, pp. 15-18.
Morino, S.; Kawaguchi, J.; Yasuzaki, C.; and Kanazawa, S., “Behavior of concrete-filled
steel tubular three-dimensional sub-assemblages,” Composite Construction in Steel and
Concrete, Proceedings of the Second Engineering Foundation Conference, 1992.
Naaman, A. E., Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design: Fundamentals, McGraw Hill
1982.
Naaman, A. E.; and Harajli, M. H., Mechanical Properties of High Performance

Concretes, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, 1990,
SHRP-C/WP-90-004.
Naaman, A. E.; and Homrich, J. R., “Tensile Stress-Strain Properties of SIFCON,” ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 86, No. 3, May – June 1989, pp. 244-251.
Naaman, A. E.; Wight, J. K.; and Abdou, H., “SIFCON Connections for Seismic
Resistant Frames,” ACI Concrete International, November 1987, pp. 34-38.
Narayanan, R., Steel-Concrete Composite Structures - Stability and Strength, Elsevier

Applied Science, London, 1988.
Nawy, E. G., Prestressed Concrete: A Fundamental Approach, Third Edition, Prentice

Hall, 2000.
Okamoto, T.; Maeno, T.; Hisatoku, T.; Kaneta, K.; and Nishizawa, H., “A Design and
Construction Practice of Rectangular Steel Tube Columns Infilled with Ultra-High
Strength Concrete Cast by Centrifugal Force,” Wakabayashi, M. Fukuoka, Japan,
September 26-29, 1991, pp. 237-246.
198
Palbøl, L.; Jakobsen, U. H.; and Thaulow, N., “Petrographic Examination of Mortar
Coatings - 0 to 60 Year Old Water Pressure Pipes,” Concrete International, Vol. 20, No.
3, March 1998, pp. 47-52.
Paultre, P.; Légeron, F.; and Mongeau, D., “Influence of Concrete Strength and
Transverse Reinforcement Yield Strength on Behavior of High-Strength Concrete
Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 4, July – August 2001, pp. 490-501.
Petrović, B., Odabrana Poglavlja iz Zemljotresnog Građevinarstva, Građevinska knjiga,

Beograd, Yugoslavia, 1985.
Ply, C. G., High-Performance Partially Cast-In-Place Composite Beam Member

Utilizing Slurry Infiltrated Mat Concrete (SIMCON) and High Strength Lightweight
Aggregate Fiber Reinforced Concrete (HS-LWA FRC), MS Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, North Carolina State University, 2000.
Prion, H. G. L.; and Boehme J., “Beam-Column Behavior of Steel Tubes Filled with
High Strength Concrete,” Vol. 21, No. 2, April 1994, pp. 207-218.
Punchin, J. F., Seismic Behavior of High Strength Lightweight Aggregate Fiber

Reinforced Concrete (HS-LWA FRC) Filled Steel Tubes, MS Thesis, Department of Civil
Ribbon Technology, Information provided by fiber manufacturers, Gahanna, Ohio, 1994.
Ricles, J. M. et al., “Seismic Performance of Concrete Filled Tube Column-to-WF Beam

Moment Connections,” Kansas City, Missouri, March 27-28, 1995, pp. 83-102.
Ricles, J. M.; and Lu, L. W., Seismic Behavior and Design of Moment Connections for
CFT Column-Systems, Lehigh University.
199
Ricles, J. M.; Lu, L. W.; Graham, W. W. Jr.; and Vermaas, G. W., “Seismic performance
of CFT column-WF beam rigid connections,” Proceedings of the Engineering
Foundation Conference, ASCE, New York, 1997.
Ricles, J. M.; Lu, L. W.; Green, P. S.; Tiberi, R.; Pang, A. K.; and Dexter, R. J.,
“Capacity of High-Strength Thin-Walled Box Columns,” Milwaukee, Wisconsin, April
5-6, 1993, pp. 115-139.
Ricles, J. M.; Lu, L. W.; Peng, S.; and Wei, S., “Split-tee seismic connections for CFT
column-WF beam MRFs,” Building to Last Structures Congress Proceedings, Vol. 2
1997, ASCE, New York.
Ricles, J. M.; Lu, L. W.; Sooi, T. K.; and Vermaas, G. W., “Seismic Performance of CFT
Column-to-WF Beam Moment Connections,” pp. 99-114.
Roeder, C. W., “CFT research in the US-Japan program,” Building to Last Structures
Congress Proceedings, Vol. 2, ASCE, New York, 1997.
Roeder, C. W., “Overview of Hybrid and Composite Systems for Seismic Design in the
United States,” Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, No. 4-6, April – June 1998, pp. 355-363.
Roeder, C. W.; Cameron, B.; and Brown, C. B., “Composite Action in Concrete Filled
Tubes,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 5, May 1999, pp. 477-484.
Schneider, S. P., “Axially loaded concrete-filled steel tubes,” Journal of Structural

Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 10, October 1998, pp. 1125-1138.
Shah, S. P.; and Ahmad, S., High Performance Concretes: Properties and Applications,
McGraw Hill, 1994.
200
Shakir-Khalil, H., “Bond Strength in Concrete-Filled Steel Hollow Sections,”
International Conference on Steel and Aluminum Structures, Vol. 3, Singapore, May
1991, pp. 157-168.
Shakir-Khalil, H., “Columns of concrete-filled rectangular hollow sections,” Composite

Construction in Steel and Concrete, Proceedings of the Second Engineering Foundation
Conference, 1992.
Shakir-Khalil, H., “Experimental study of concrete-filled rectangular hollow section

columns,” Structural Engineering Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, May 1994, pp. 85-96.
Shakir-Khalil, H., “Beam Connections to Concrete-Filled Tubes”, Proceedings of the

Sixth International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Grundy, P., Holgate, A., and
Wong, W. (eds.), Melbourne, Australia, December 14-16, 1994, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 357-364.
Shams, M., Non-Linear Evaluation of Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Columns, PhD

Thesis, New Jersey Institute of Technology, January 1997.
Shams, M.; and Saadeghaziri, M. A., “State of the Art of Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular
Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No. 5, September – October 1997, pp. 558-
571.
Soubra, K. S.; Wight, J. K.; and Naaman, A. E., Fiber Reinforced Concrete Joints for
Precast Construction in Seismic Areas, Report No. UMCEE 92-2, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1992.
Takiguchi, K.; and Abdullah, “Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Columns

Using Ferrocement Jacket,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 5, September – October
2001, pp. 696-704.
201
Tomii, M.; and Sakino K., “Experimental Studies on the Ultimate Moment of Concrete
Filled Square Steel Tubular Beam-Columns,” No. 275, January 1979, pp. 55-63.
Tomlinson, M. J., Foundation Design and Construction, Sixth Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY, 1995.
Vasconez, R. M.; Naaman, A. E.; and Wight, J. K., Behavior of Fiber Reinforced
Connections for Precast Frames Under Reversed Cyclic Loading, Report Number
UMCEE 97-2, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1997.
Viest, I. M.; Colaco, J. P.; Furlong, R. W.; Griffis, L. G.; Leon, R. T.; and Wyllie, L. A.,
Composite Construction Design for Buildings, ASCE and McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
1997.
Wei, S.; Mau, S. T.; Vipulanandan, C.; and Mantrala, S. K., “Performance of New
Sandwich Tube under Axial Loading, Experiment,” Vol. 121, No. 12, 1995, pp. 1806-
1821.
Wood, B. T., Use of Slurry Infiltrated Fiber Concrete (SIFCON) in Hinge Regions for
Earthquake Resistant Concrete Moment Frames, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil
Yoshioka, K., “State of the Art of Composite Steel Tube and Concrete Structures in
Japan,” 1996, pp. 119-35.
Zhang, W.; and Shahrooz, B. M., “Strength of Short and Long Concrete-Filled Tubular
Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No. 2, March – April 1999, pp. 230-238.
202
Zhang, F.; and Yamada, M., “Composite Columns Subjected to Bending and Shear,”
Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete, Proceedings of the Second Engineering
Foundation Conference, 1992.
Zienkiewicz, O. C.; and Taylor, R. L., The Finite Element Method, Vol. 1 & 2, McGraw-
Hill, London, 1989.
203

Etd PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Etd PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABSTRACT

BREZAC, BORIS. Seismic Behavior of SIMCON-Jacketed High Strength Lightweight

decades advanced fiber reinforced cementitious composites such as High-Performance

approach to earthquake resistant structures.

possibly more cost-effective method of construction than in conventional structures. The

outwards buckling of the steel tube.

A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

This research was supported by NSF – Earthquake Hazard Mitigation, US-Japan

4 HP-FRC SPECIMEN GEOMETRY AND MANUFACTURING 59

5 TESTING AND BEHAVIOR OF HP-FRC SPECIMEN 79

6 DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS 134

7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 185

Table 3.1 – Modulus of elasticity of the steel specimens 27

Figure 1.1 – Beam-column sub-assemblage of the HPFC 2

1.1 Research Topic Overview

Such a composite frame, termed herein High-Performance Composite Frame (HPCF), is

Beam Column Steel tube

Fuse Central beam

Precast SIFCON SIMCON

Figure 1.1 – Beam-column sub-assemblage of the HPFC

1.1.1 Column Member

HS-LWA concrete is ideally suited for column members if it is adequately confined

HS-LWA FRC core

3/8" SHEAR STUDS

185" 1'-043" 185"

Figure 1.3 – Horizontal cross-section of the SIMCON jacketed HS-LWA FRC

1" Typ. 2" Typ.

Figure 1.5a – Cross-section of the beam member near connection region

1" Typ. 2" Typ.

Figure 1.5b – Cross-section of the beam member outside end region

Figure 1.6 – Longitudinal sections of the beam member

Figure 1.8 – Reverse-cyclic test set-up for the beam member

-0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001

Figure 1.13 – Typical cross section of SIFCON fuse specimen

-150 Curvature Ductility = 10.3

Figure 1.14 – Moment-curvature response of the SIFCON fuse (Wood, 2000)

1.2 CFT Reference Specimen

Figure 1.15 – Side view of the CFT reference specimen

HS-LWA FRC Core

1" 2'-1" 74"

Figure 1.19 – Test layout

1.3 Research Objectives

Main objectives of this investigation were:

1.4 Research Methods

2.1 Background on Concrete Filled Tubular Members

2.2 Interaction between Concrete and Steel – Onset of Confinement

2.3 Parameters Affecting CFT Behavior

2.3.1 Effect of Bond

2.3.2 Effect of Cross-Section Shape

2.3.3 Effect of Slenderness (L/D)

2.3.4 Effect of Aspect Ratio (D/t)

Concrete is a relatively brittle material in compression. Increasing the compressive

2.3.6 Effect of Steel Yield Strength

2.3.7 Effect of Axial Load

An increase in axial compressive load increases flexural capacity of the column up to a

3.1.1 Material Behavior

Figure 3.2 – 0.5 in wide longitudinal strip specimen

Figure 3.3 – Broken 1.5 in wide longitudinal strip specimen

3.1.1.2 Modulus of Elasticity

Table 3.1 – Modulus of elasticity of the steel specimens

Yield strength and yield strain

Figure 3.8 – Failure of the longitudinal strip specimens (A 53 Grade B)

3.2 High Strength Light-Weight Aggregate Fiber Reinforced Concrete