Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract: Hybrid fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)-concrete-steel double-skin tubular columns (DSTCs) are a new form of composite col-
umns that consist of an outer FRP tube and an inner steel tube, with the space between them filled with concrete. Although many studies have
been conducted on the hybrid DSTCs, no studies have been conducted on their behavior under blast loading. This study presents the results of
a numerical study on the behavior of hybrid DSTCs under close-in blast loading. Numerical models of hybrid DSTCs are developed using
finite-element code LS-DYNA, and the reliability of the developed models are validated with available testing results. With the validated
models, numerical simulations are carried out to investigate the structural responses of hybrid DSTCs under blast loading. The simulation
results indicate that the hybrid DSTCs behave in a ductile manner under blast loading. The outer FRP tube can effectively provide confine-
ment to the infilled concrete, and the inner steel tube plays a key role in resisting the blast loading. Detailed parametric analyses are conducted
to investigate the influences of different parameters on the blast behavior of hybrid DSTCs. The blast resistance capacities of the hybrid
DSTCs, concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs), and concrete-filled double-skin steel tubes (CFDSTs) are compared and discussed based on the
simulation results. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000871. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) tube; Steel tube; Concrete; Double-skin tubular columns (DSTCs); Blast; Numerical
simulation.
Introduction that the hybrid DSTCs can exhibit superior performance when sub-
jected to different loading conditions, which makes hybrid DSTCs
Because of their properties of high strength and stiffness:weight a competitive substitution for traditional RC columns. Although
ratio as well as superior corrosion resistance, the use of fiber- many studies have been conducted on the hybrid DSTCs, few stud-
reinforced polymer (FRP) composites as external confinement for ies have been conducted on their behavior under impact or blast
concrete columns has received a great deal of attention in the last loading (Abdelkarim and ElGawady 2016; Wang et al. 2015a).
two decades. One popular application of FRP composites is to Wang et al. (2015a) and Abdelkarim and ElGawady (2016) carried
retrofit or strengthen existing concrete columns (ACI 2008b). More out experimental and numerical studies on the behavior of hybrid
recently, application of FRP composites in newly constructed con- DSTCs under lateral impact loading. The results indicated that the
crete columns, such as concrete-filled FRP tubes (CFFTs) and hy- hybrid DSTCs behave in a very ductile manner and have a long
brid FRP-concrete-steel double-skin tubular columns (DSTCs), has stabilized stage of impact force under lateral impact loading.
been of interest to some researchers (Fam and Rizkalla 2001; Hadi The main impact resistance of the hybrid DSTCs is provided by
et al. 2015; Mirmiran and Shahawy 1996; Teng et al. 2007; Wang the inner steel tube, whereas the FRP tube has only a moderate
et al. 2016, 2017; Yu and Teng 2011). influence on the lateral residual deflection of hybrid DSTCs. In
Hybrid DSTCs consist of an outer FRP tube and an inner steel addition, the influence of FRP tube thickness on the duration of
tube, with the space between them filled with concrete. Since hy- impact force is moderate. Until now, no studies have been con-
brid DSTCs were proposed by Teng et al. (2007), a number of stud- ducted on the behavior of hybrid DSTCs under blast loading.
ies have been conducted to investigate their compressive, flexural, A number of studies have investigated the blast behavior of
cyclic, and seismic behaviors (Han et al. 2010; Ozbakkaloglu and concrete-filled double-skin steel tubes (CFDSTs) in recent years
Idris 2014; Teng et al. 2007; Yu et al. 2006). These studies indicated (Zhang et al. 2015a, b, 2016a, b). Zhang et al. (2016a) experimen-
tally and numerically investigated the blast behavior of CFDSTs,
1
Research Associate, Center for Built Infrastructure Research, School and found that CFDSTs exhibit excellent performance under blast
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Technology Sydney, loading. The CFDSTs exhibit similar blast behavior as concrete-
Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia. Email: Weiqiang.Wang@uts.edu.au filled steel tubes (CFSTs) if the hollowness ratio of CFDSTs is
2
Professor, Center for Built Infrastructure Research, School of Civil and no more than 0.5. Moreover, by replacing normal-strength concrete
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW with ultrahigh performance concrete, the blast behavior of CFDSTs
2007, Australia (corresponding author). Email: Chengqing.Wu@uts.edu.au can be remarkably improved by mitigating the concrete tensile
3
Lecturer, Center for Built Infrastructure Research, School of Civil and cracking and reducing the residual deflection. Zhang et al. (2015a)
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW
investigated the residual axial load–carrying capacity of CFDSTs
2007, Australia. Email: Jun.Li-2@uts.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 14, 2017; approved on after blast loading.
April 18, 2018; published online on July 17, 2018. Discussion period Studies were also conducted on the blast behavior of RC columns
open until December 17, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted strengthened with FRP composites (Crawford 2013; Crawford et al.
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites 1997; Jacques et al. 2015; Malvar et al. 2007; Mutalib and
for Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268. Hao 2011; Rodriguez-Nikl et al. 2012). The RC columns can be
gitudinal and transverse directions. Transverse FRP wrapping is pro- ¼ for ε̇s ≤ 30 s−1 ð1Þ
f cs ε̇s
vided to increase the shear resistance and deformation capacity,
whereas the longitudinal FRP strip is provided to enhance the flexu- 1=3
fc ε̇
ral resistance capacity. These studies suggested that FRP strengthen- ¼ γs for ε̇s > 30 s−1 ð2Þ
ing is an effective way of improving RC column blast performance f cs ε̇s
by preventing shear failure (Crawford 2013). However, due to the
complexity of blast behavior, most of these studies only provided where fc = dynamic compressive strength at ε̇; f cs = static com-
qualitative rather than quantitative results. Moreover, many studies pressive strength at ε̇s ; ε̇ = strain rate in the range 30 × 10−6 to
lacked essential information (e.g., charge weights and standoff dis- 300 s−1 ; ε̇s = static strain rate of 30 × 10−6 ; log γ s ¼ 6.156α − 2;
α ¼ 1=ð5 þ 9f cs =f co Þ; and f co ¼ 10 MPa.
tances), which prevented a better understanding of the blast resis-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1000 1200
1000
800
Axial load (kN)
800
600
600
400
400
DS1A DS2A
200 DS2B
DS1B 200
Prediction Prediction
0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.02 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.02
(a) Axial strain (b) Axial strain
1400
1200
1000
Axial load (kN)
800
600
400
DS3A
DS3B
200 Prediction
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
(c) Axial strain
Fig. 2. Comparisons of experimental and predicted axial load–axial strain behavior of hybrid DSTCs: (a) Specimens DS1A and DS1B;
(b) Specimens DS2 and DS2B; and (c) Specimens DS3A and DS3B.
150
120
Load (kN)
90
60
30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
DSTB-1
Prediction
0
0 20 40 60 80
(a) Mid-span Deflection (mm)
180
150
120
Load (kN)
90
60
30 DSTB-4
Prediction
0
0 20 40 60 80
Fig. 3. Numerical model of hybrid DSTCs under four-point bending (b) Mid-span Deflection (mm)
loading: (a) cross section of hybrid DSTCs under four-point bending;
and (b) setup of four-point bending test. Fig. 4. Comparisons of numerical results and test results: (a) DSTB-1;
and (b) DSTB-4.
Fig. 6. Numerical model for CFFTs under blast loading: (a) finite-element model; and (b) cross section of CFFTs.
of 5.5 mm. The tube had a transverse tensile strength of 128 MPa explosive was spherical and equivalent to 59.5 kg trinitrotoluene
with a transverse tensile modulus of 21.6 GPa. The longitudinal (TNT) (Qasrawi et al. 2015).
tensile strength was 48.3 MPa with a longitudinal tensile modulus A three-node beam element (BEAM_161) with 2 × 2 Gauss
of 10.1 GPa. The specimen was subjected to 50 kg C4 explosives quadrature integration was used to model the steel reinforcement.
with a standoff distance of 2.20 m above the midspan. The The numerical model included 80 meshes along the transverse
80
Residual deflection=31.2 mm
40
0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
-40
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (ms)
of the FRP tube, and the FRP tube cannot contribute to the increase
General Observations
of the flexural resistance capacity of the hybrid DSTCs and thus
Fig. 9 shows the damage evolution of the infilled concrete under cannot resist the blast loading directly. Nevertheless, with a scaled
blast loading. The number of the fringe indicates the damage level: distance of 0.55 m=kg1=3 [Fig. 10(b)], the existence of an outer
0 indicates no damage; 1 indicates initiation of softening behavior; FRP tube can influence the blast performance of hybrid DSTCs to
and 2 indicates total damage. Because of the low tensile strength of some extent. There might be two reasons for this: (1) although the
concrete, damage can easily occur at the rear surface of hybrid FRP tube cannot resist the blast loading directly, the confinement
DSTCs. With the continuous propagation of the blast-induced stress provided by the FRP tube can improve the behavior of the infilled
wave, damage began to occur at the front surface of hybrid DSTCs. concrete under blast loading; moreover, with the increase of blast
The concrete damage was fully developed at 15 ms and did not loading, the confinement effect becomes more significant, and thus
propagate afterward. Although the infilled concrete was seriously the performance improvement of the infilled concrete can be more
damaged and lost all shear strength during the blast loading, it could significant; and (2) with the increase of blast loading, the FRP tube
still contribute to the blast resistance by providing dynamic com- can prevent the possible occurrence of shear deformation. As a re-
pressive forces if it was under compression during the reciprocating sult, the FRP tube can prevent performance deterioration of hybrid
motion. DSTCs due to shear behavior. This explanation can be validated
To investigate the effect of the outer FRP tube on the blast using observations reported by Crawford et al. (1997) and Malvar
resistance of hybrid DSTCs, specimens without outer FRP tubes et al. (2007). In these studies, the nonstrengthened RC columns
were modeled and subjected to blast loading. Because no FRP tube experienced severe shear failure damage, and wrapping of FRP
was provided for the protection of infilled concrete, the infilled con- was very effective in improving the shear resistance capacity and
crete served as the cover concrete and was subject to fragmentation
and spall damage (Li and Hao 2014; Li et al. 2017). In order to
represent the fragmentation and spalling of infilled concrete under 40
With FRP tube
blast loading, the erosion algorithm was adopted. The erosion al- Without FRP tube
30
Mid-span Deflection (mm)
-10
-20
0 20 40 60 80
(a) Time (ms)
80
With FRP tube
Without FRP tube
Mid-span Deflection (mm)
60
40
20
-20
0 20 40 60 80
t=2.5 ms t=5 ms t=10 ms t=15 ms t=50 ms (b) Time (ms)
Fig. 9. Damage evolution of infilled concrete under blast loading Fig. 10. Midspan deflection-time histories for DSTCs with and with-
(Z ¼ 0.70 m=kg1=3 ). out FRP tube: (a) Z ¼ 0.70 m=kg1=3 ; and (b) Z ¼ 0.55 m=kg1=3 .
250 mm. Points A and F–I were uniformly located on the midspan uniform along the transverse direction of specimen. The maximum
of the FRP tube. Fig. 12 shows the hoop strain distribution of FRP hoop strain was found at the rear surface of the specimen (Point I)
tube in the longitudinal direction. The largest hoop strain occurred with a maximum value of 0.005. This was followed by the hoop
at the midspan region (Point A), and the hoop strain continuously strain at the front surface (Point A) with a maximum value of
decreased as the distance to the midspan increased. At Point D, 0.0036. The hoop strain significantly decreased between Points A
and I. Considering the relatively low hoop strain values, the FRP
confinement may not significantly improve the performance of in-
filled concrete when subjected to blast loading with a scaled dis-
tance of 0.70 m=kg1=3 .
Fig. 14 shows the hoop strain values of FRP tube at Points A
and I when subjected to different TNT explosives (1, 3, 5, 10, and
20 kg TNT). The standoff distance was kept as 1.5 m. Therefore,
0.006
0.005
I
0.004
A
0.003
Hoop Strain
H
0.002 G
F
0.001
Point A
0.000 Point F
Point G
-0.001 Point H
Point I
-0.002
0 20 40 60 80
Time (ms)
Fig. 11. Locations of selected points from FRP tube (all units in
Fig. 13. Hoop strain distribution along transverse direction of FRP
millimeter): (a) longitudinal direction; and (b) transverse direction
tube (Z ¼ 0.70 m=kg1=3 ).
(midspan).
0.004 0.010
A
0.003
0.008
0.002 B
Hoop Strain
Hoop strain
E 0.006
0.001
C
0.004
D
0.000
Point A
Point B 0.002
-0.001 Point C
Point A
Point D
Point I
Point E
-0.002 0.000
0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 15 20
Time (ms) TNT charge (kg)
Fig. 12. Hoop strain distribution along longitudinal direction of FRP Fig. 14. Hoop strain distribution of FRP tube under different charge
tube (Z ¼ 0.70 m=kg1=3 ). weights (standoff distance is kept 1.5 m).
scaled distances (0.88, 0.70, and 0.55 m=kg1=3 ), the hoop strain thickness, composite column type (hybrid DSTCs, CFSTs, and
Table 3. Maximum and residual deflections for hybrid DSTCs with varying parameters
Concrete Charge FRP tube Steel tube Axial Fiber Maximum Residual
strength, fco weight, W thickness, tf thickness, ts Hollowness load level, orientations, Column deflection deflection
Group (MPa) (kg) (mm) (mm) ratio, φ λ β types (mm) (mm)
1 (concrete strength) 25 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 28.7 4.9
40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 27.2 3.6
55 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 26.0 2.4
2 (charge weight) 40 1 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 4.2 0.4
40 3 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 10.2 0.4
40 5 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 15.3 0.8
40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 27.2 3.6
40 20 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 56.0 21.3
3 (FRP tube thickness) 40 10 0.17 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 27.8 3.5
40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 27.2 3.6
40 10 1.00 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 26.5 3.5
40 10 1.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 25.9 2.7
4 (steel tube thickness) 40 10 0.50 3.5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 32.5 5.2
40 10 0.50 5.0 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 27.2 3.6
40 10 0.50 6.5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 24.4 2.7
40 10 0.50 8.0 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 21.4 1.4
5 (hollowness ratio) 40 10 0.50 5 0.35 0 WLT DSTCs 35.3 6.2
40 10 0.50 5 0.45 0 WLT DSTCs 30.6 4.3
40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 27.2 3.6
40 10 0.50 5 0.65 0 WLT DSTCs 25.1 2.6
6 (axial load level) 40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 27.2 3.6
40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0.1 WLT DSTCs 27.2 5.1
40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0.3 WLT DSTCs 26.4 4.3
40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0.5 WLT DSTCs 27.9 5.5
40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0.7 WLT DSTCs 31.2 11.0
40 30 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 94.6 58.0
40 30 0.50 5 0.55 0.1 WLT DSTCs 94.8 53.0
40 30 0.50 5 0.55 0.2 WLT DSTCs 95.0 57.0
40 30 0.50 5 0.55 0.3 WLT DSTCs 96.9 74.0
40 30 0.50 5 0.55 0.4 WLT DSTCs 103.0 100.3
40 30 0.50 5 0.55 0.5 WLT DSTCs Fail —
7 (fiber orientation) 40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 27.2 3.6
40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 FWT DSTCs 24.7 1.5
40 20 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 56.0 21.3
40 20 0.50 5 0.55 0 FWT DSTCs 50.8 16.4
40 10 1.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 25.9 2.7
40 10 1.50 5 0.55 0 FWT DSTCs 21.6 1.6
40 20 1.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 50.1 14.4
40 20 1.50 5 0.55 0 FWT DSTCs 39.8 6.4
8 (column type) 40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 27.2 3.6
40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 — CFSTs 27.1 2.3
40 10 0.50 5 0.55 0 — CFDSTs 24.5 3.3
40 10 1.50 5 0.55 0 WLT DSTCs 25.9 2.7
40 10 1.50 5 0.55 0 — CFSTs 18.9 1.8
40 10 1.50 5 0.55 0 — CFDSTs 19.1 1.9
Note: WLT = wet-layup FRP tube with fibers along transverse direction of FRP tube; and FWT = filament-wound FRP tube with fibers in both longitudinal
and transverse directions of FRP tube.
different concrete strengths. Increasing the concrete strength only tional RC columns (Li et al. 2017). For the hybrid DSTCs, even
slightly decreased the maximum and residual deflections. Although though the infilled concrete was protected by the FRP tube, the
higher concrete compressive strength was used, the increase in the damage easily propagated during the blast loading. One reason
concrete tensile strength was much less, and the contribution from for such behavior is the low tensile resistance of concrete; concrete
the infilled concrete to resist the dynamic tensile force induced by damage can be easily developed if the concrete dynamic tensile
the blast loading did not increase. Similar observations were made strength is approached. The other reason is that, unlike solid RC
for concrete-filled steel tubes and concrete-filled double-skin steel columns, in which the concrete core and concrete cover are well
tubes (Zhang et al. 2015b, 2016a). integrated with each other, the integration between the infilled
concrete and inner steel tube is weak (e.g., insufficient bonding
Influence of Scaled Distance strength), and slip easily occurs between the infilled concrete and
inner steel tube (Idris and Ozbakkaloglu 2014; Yu et al. 2006).
The influence of scaled distance on the blast resistance of hybrid Therefore, the infilled sandwiched concrete is more likely to expe-
DSTCs was investigated by varying the scaled distance from 0.55 rience premature failure than is intact solid concrete (Li and Hao
to 1.50 m=kg1=3 while keeping other parameters constant. Fig. 16 2014; Yu et al. 2006).
55 MPa
layer, three layers, six layers, and nine layers of CFRP sheets were
20 used. The scaled distance was 0.70 m=kg1=3 . Fig. 18 illustrates the
midspan deflection-time histories of hybrid DSTCs with varying
FRP tube thickness. An increase in FRP tube thickness did not re-
10
sult in significant decreases of the maximum and residual deflec-
tions of the hybrid DSTCs. Because all the fibers were aligned
0 along the transverse direction of the FRP tubes, the FRP tubes
did not contribute to the increase of the flexural resistance capacity
-10 of hybrid DSTCs and thus did not resist the longitudinal tensile
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (ms)
Fig. 15. Influence of concrete strength.
60
1/3
Z=1.50 m/kg
1/3
50 Z=1.04 m/kg
1/3
Mid-span Deflection (mm)
Z=0.88 m/kg
40 Z=0.70 m/kg
1/3
1/3
Z=0.55 m/kg
30
20
10
-10
Z=1.50 Z=1.04 Z=0.88 Z=0.70 Z=0.55
-20
1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3
0 10 20 30 40 50 m/kg m/kg m/kg m/kg m/kg1/3
Time (ms)
Fig. 17. Effective strain distribution of infilled concrete under different
Fig. 16. Influence of scaled distance. blast loadings.
-10
double-skin steel tubes were compared to investigate their blast re-
-20 sistance capacities. Figs. 20(a and b) shows the midspan deflection-
0 10 20 30 40 50 time histories for the composite columns with different outer tube
Time (ms) thicknesses (0.5 and 1.5 mm, respectively). Because of the exist-
ence of both outer and inner steel tubes, the maximum and residual
Fig. 18. Influence of FRP tube thickness. deflections of CFDSTs were lower than those of DSTCs in both
cases. The maximum deflection of hybrid DSTCs and CFSTs was
very close when the outer steel tube thickness was small (0.5 mm).
force (Fam et al. 2005; Idris and Ozbakkaloglu 2014; Wang et al. With a relatively larger outer steel tube thickness (1.5 mm), the
2015b; Yu et al. 2006). This conclusion is similar to that observed blast resistance of the inner steel tube became less significant than
by Wang et al. (2015a) and Abdelkarim and ElGawady (2016). that of outer steel tube. Therefore, even with both inner and outer
They reported that the transverse impact behavior of hybrid DSTCs steel tubes, the maximum deflection of CFDSTs was very close
cannot be significantly improved by increasing FRP layers. Never- to the maximum deflection of CFSTs. Both CFDSTs and CFSTs
theless, Crawford et al. (1997) and Malvar et al. (2007) reported experienced significantly lower maximum deflections than hybrid
contradicting conclusions. Crawford et al. (1997) and Malvar et al. DSTCs. This comparison indicates that under the selected blast
(2007) found that the blast resistance capacity of FRP strengthened loading in this study, using a steel tube as an external jacket for
RC columns can be significantly improved by using more FRP
layers. There might be a reason for this difference. The present 40
study designed the blast loading to produce moderate damage to DSTCs (t=0.5 mm)
CFST (t=0.5 mm)
the hybrid DSTCs. Therefore, shear failure and flexural failure 30
Mid-span Deflection (mm)
6.5 mm
8 mm
20 10
10 0
0 -10
-10 -20
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Time (ms)
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (ms) Fig. 20. Blast resistance of different types of composite columns:
(a) outer tube thickness ¼ 0.5 mm; and (b) outer tube thickness ¼
Fig. 19. Influence of inner steel tube thickness. 1.5 mm.
range of hollowness ratio, the maximum and residual deflections Influence of Axial Load Level
decreased with the increase of hollowness ratio. Moreover, the
period of oscillation decreased with increasing hollowness ratio. Concrete columns are always subjected to static loading during
Increasing the hollowness ratio can obtain a larger steel reinforce- their service life. To investigate the influence of axial load level
ment ratio and a lower slenderness ratio of the inner steel tube. on the blast behavior of hybrid DSTCs, numerical simulations were
These two factors are beneficial for the increase of the flexural carried out on axially loaded hybrid DSTCs. Different magnitudes
resistance capacity of the columns, and therefore a higher blast of axial loads, ranging from 0% to 70% of the ultimate load of
resistance can be obtained (Bambach 2008; Zhang et al. 2016a). hybrid DSTCs, were investigated. The ultimate load of hybrid
Nevertheless, for CFDSTs under blast loading, the hollow core DSTCs, Pu , can be obtained by the following equation (China
had little effect on the overall structural responses when the hollow- Architecture and Building 2012):
ness ratio was less than 0.5 (Zhang et al. 2016b). As discussed pre-
Pu ¼ 0.85f cc Ac þ f y As ð6Þ
viously, the main blast resistance for CFDSTs comes from the outer
steel tube if the outer steel tube thickness is large. Therefore, the where f cc = ultimate strength of infilled concrete; Ac = cross-
contribution from the inner steel tube is less and does not affect the sectional area of infilled concrete; fy = yield stress of steel tube;
overall performance. and As = cross-sectional area of the steel tube.
On the other hand, because of the variation of hollowness ratios, Because of the confinement provided by the FRP tube, the
the total masses were different for the hybrid DSTCs with different ultimate compressive strength of the infilled concrete can be much
higher than its unconfined compressive strength. Teng et al. (2009)
proposed equations to predict the ultimate compressive strength
40
of FRP-confined concrete. Yu et al. (2010) adopted these equations
ϕ =0.35
ϕ =0.45
to predict the ultimate compressive strength of infilled concrete in
Mid-span Deflection (mm)
30 hybrid DSTCs
ϕ =0.55
ϕ =0.65
20 0
f cc 1 ρK < 0.01
0 ¼ ð7Þ
f co 1 þ 3.5ðρK − 0.01Þρε ρK ≥ 0.01
10
where ρK ¼ 2Efrp t=ðEsec dÞ is confinement stiffness ratio, where
0 Efrp = elastic modulus of FRP tube in transverse direction, t = thick-
ness of FRP tube, and d = outer diameter of infilled concrete; and
-10 ρε ¼ εh;rup =εco is strain ratio, where εh;rup = hoop rupture strain of
FRP tube.
-20 Fig. 22 illustrates the midspan deflection-time histories of hy-
0 10 20 30 40 50 brid DSTCs with different axial load levels. Under a lower axial
(a) Time (ms) load level, the maximum and residual deflections did not increase
with the increase of axial load. However, when the axial load level
40 continued increasing beyond a critical value, the maximum and
ϕ =0.35
ϕ =0.45
residual deflections increased noticeably. This effect was more sig-
Mid-span Deflection (mm)
30
Mid-span Deflection (mm)
10 20
10
0
0
-10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
-10
-20
-20 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Time (ms)
(a) Time (ms)
60
180 1/3
0 9 layers WLT@ 0.70 m/kg
0.1
50 9 layers FWT@ 0.70 m/kg
1/3
0.3
40 1/3
9 layers FWT@ 0.55 m/kg
0.4
120 0.5
30
20
90
10
60 0
-10
30
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 (b) Time (ms)
(b) Time (ms)
Fig. 23. Influence of fiber orientation: (a) FRP tube thickness ¼
Fig. 22. Influence of axial load level: (a) Z ¼ 0.70 m=kg1=3 ; and 0.5 mm; and (b) FRP tube thickness ¼ 1.5 mm.
(b) Z ¼ 0.48 m=kg1=3 .
Rodriguez-Nikl, T., C.-S. Lee, G. A. Hegemier, and F. Seible. 2012. “Ex- Yu, T., and J. G. Teng. 2011. “Design of concrete-filled FRP tubular col-
perimental performance of concrete columns with composite jackets umns: Provisions in the Chinese technical code for infrastructure appli-
under blast loading.” J. Struct. Eng. 138 (1): 81–89. https://doi.org/10 cation of FRP composites.” J. Compos. Constr. 15 (3): 451–461. https://
.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000444. doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000159.
Tang, E. K. C., and H. Hao. 2010. “Numerical simulation of a cable-stayed Yu, T., J. G. Teng, and Y. L. Wong. 2010. “Stress-strain behavior of
bridge response to blast loads, Part I: Model development and response concrete in hybrid FRP-concrete-steel double-skin tubular columns.”
calculations.” Eng. Struct. 32 (10): 3180–3192. https://doi.org/10.1016 J. Struct. Eng. 136 (4): 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0000121.
/j.engstruct.2010.06.007.
Yu, T., Y. L. Wong, J. G. Teng, S. L. Dong, and E. S. S. Lam. 2006. “Flexu-
Teng, J. G., T. Jiang, L. Lam, and Y. Z. Luo. 2009. “Refinement of a design-
ral behavior of hybrid FRP-concrete-steel double-skin tubular mem-
oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete.” J. Compos.
bers.” J. Compos. Constr. 10 (5): 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1061
Constr. 13 (4): 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943
/(ASCE)1090-0268(2006)10:5(443).
-5614.0000012.
Zhang, B., J. G. Teng, and T. Yu. 2017. “Compressive behavior of double-
Teng, J. G., T. Yu, Y. L. Wong, and S. L. Dong. 2007. “Hybrid FRP– skin tubular columns with high-strength concrete and a filament-wound
concrete–steel tubular columns: Concept and behavior.” Constr. Build. FRP tube.” J. Compos. Constr. 21 (5): 04017029. https://doi.org/10
Mater. 21 (4): 846–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.06 .1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000800.
.017. Zhang, F., C. Wu, Z.-X. Li, and X.-L. Zhao. 2015a. “Residual axial capac-
Wang, R., L.-H. Han, and Z. Tao. 2015a. “Behavior of FRP–concrete–steel ity of CFDST columns infilled with UHPFRC after close-range blast
double skin tubular members under lateral impact: Experimental study.” loading.” Thin-Walled Struct. 96: 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Thin-Walled Struct. 95: 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2015.06 .tws.2015.08.020.
.022. Zhang, F., C. Wu, H. Wang, and Y. Zhou. 2015b. “Numerical simulation of
Wang, W., M. N. Sheikh, and M. N. S. Hadi. 2015b. “Behaviour of perfo- concrete filled steel tube columns against BLAST loads.” Thin-Walled
rated GFRP tubes under axial compression.” Thin-Walled Struct. Struct. 92: 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2015.02.020.
95: 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2015.06.019. Zhang, F., C. Wu, X.-L. Zhao, A. Heidarpour, and Z. Li. 2016a. “Exper-
Wang, W., M. N. Sheikh, and M. N. S. Hadi. 2016. “Experimental study on imental and numerical study of blast resistance of square CFDST col-
FRP tube reinforced concrete columns under different loading condi- umns with steel-fibre reinforced concrete.” Eng. Struct. 149: 50–63.
tions.” J. Compos. Constr. 20 (5): 04016034. https://doi.org/10.1061 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.06.022.
/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000690. Zhang, F., C. Wu, X.-L. Zhao, H. Xiang, Z.-X. Li, Q. Fang, Z. Liu,
Wang, W., M. N. Sheikh, M. N. S. Hadi, D. Gao, and G. Chen. 2017. Y. Zhang, A. Heidarpour, and J. A. Packer. 2016b. “Experimental
“Behaviour of concrete-encased concrete-filled FRP tube (CCFT) col- study of CFDST columns infilled with UHPC under close-range blast
umns under axial compression.” Eng. Struct. 147: 256–268. https://doi loading.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 93: 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.061. .ijimpeng.2016.01.011.