ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Mater., 15 December 2022

Sec. Structural Materials

Volume 9 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2022.1055397

Finite element and theoretical investigations on PVC–CFRP confined concrete columns under axial compression

  • 1. Department of Construction Management, Qujing Normal University, Qujing, Yunnan, China

  • 2. Department of Civil Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

  • 3. Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Duhok, Duhok, Iraq

  • 4. Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Nawroz University, Duhok, Iraq

  • 5. Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia

  • 6. Department of Civil Engineering, Universitas Abulyatama, Aceh Besar, Indonesia

  • 7. Department of Civil Engineering, Zakir Husain Engineering College, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

  • 8. Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Petersburg, Russia

Article metrics

View details

32

Citations

3,8k

Views

1,1k

Downloads

Abstract

This article examines the performance of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) on Concrete Filled with Polymer Vinyl Chloride Tube (CFPT) columns under axial compression. Firstly, 44 CFPT specimens from the literature were analyzed using ABAQUS software to understand the compressive behavior of specimens under applied displacement. Secondly, 268 CFPT specimens are simulated to understand the influence of CFRP on these control specimens with a varying number of FRP layers and wrapping depth. Other variables such as the unconfined concrete strength, the thickness of the PVC tube, and the size and slenderness ratio of the columns were also studied. Studies are extended to confinement damage plasticity model analysis of CFRP-CFPT (CCFPT) columns. Relationships between the load-carrying capacity of CCFPT columns and the CFRP properties were developed. The effect of these parameters on the CFPT leads to the development of analytical models. It is an advantage to applying a such new type of composite columns in various applications.

Highlights

  • • Axial compression behavior of concrete-filled CFRP–PVC tubular (CFCT) columns.

  • • A confined damage plasticity model for finite element model (FEM) simulation of the CFCT column was developed.

  • • Effect of column test variables

  • • Model development to predict the failure strength and strain of CFCT columns.

1 Introduction

The usage of composite materials like concrete-filled steel tubes results in long-term strength and poor durability characteristics (Han et al., 2014). To overcome this, research recommends the usage of plastics. One such kind is Polymer Vinyl Chloride (PVC) materials which demonstrate extraordinary mechanical properties related to other general plastics, establishing a remarkable ratio of cost to performance, and specifically amazing durability (Wang and Yang, 2010). Several authors (Abbassi and Ahmad., 2020; Kazmi et al., 2021) even introduced waste materials for making composite materials having enhanced mechanical properties. Nowack et al. (1995) investigated the usage of soil-buried PVC pipes excavated up after 60 years of active use, which showed no deterioration and were expected to have an additional useful life of 50 years. There are several advantages like high strength, high stiffness, higher confinement strength, and full usage of materials used in composite columns like Concrete Filled PVC Tubes (CFPT) columns in various applications. Therefore, the number of researchers who studied, concrete columns confined by different materials (Guo et al., 2008) is increased and the inclusion of such composite material can increase the ultimate strength and strain of concrete (Jiang et al., 2014) of composite columns. Vedernikov, et al., 2022 reported that the pulling speed significantly affects the morphology and mechanical properties of fiber composites for structural applications. The stiffness and load-carrying capacities of a beam are enhanced by wrapping different types of fibers. And also, the study is extended to the effect of fully and partially wrapping fibers on the load-carrying capacity and stiffness (Gemi et al., 2022a). Aksoylu, et al. (2022) proved that the different FRP profiles of FRP boxes, strengthened by FRP wrapping enhance the compressive strength of composites.

CFPT columns exposed to the severe environmental condition indicated that no degradation in the strength and ductility of the specimen is reported by Gupta and Verma. (2014). Even CFPT columns submerged in seawater for 6 months revealed that the microstructure of infilled concrete and the chemical composition of PVC remains unaltered (Gupta and Verma., 2014). PVC tubes subjected to accelerated aging in the air at 80°C and 90°C for 8 weeks suffered no important changes in mechanical properties and elongation at fracture of PVC materials (Jackubowicz et al., 1999). Apart from durability characteristics usage of PVC tubes increases the load-carrying capacity of a column and also increases the longitudinal deformation capacity. Although there are a lot of advantages are there in utilizing CFPT columns for various applications, it also has several disadvantages. CFPT columns can efficiently inhibit the interior buckling of the PVC tube. Deformation and failure of CFPT are caused primarily by the peripheral buckling of the PVC tube.

Wrapping of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) material outside the concrete-filled tube can restrain the local buckling (Xiao., 2004). In addition, FRP increases the confinement strength by compensating for the weak confinement provided by PVC tubes, introducing confined CFPT columns. One such FRP used in this investigation is Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP), which is used for wrapping around the CFPT columns thereby enhancing the mechanical and durability properties. CFRP has several advantages such as high strength, good durability, fatigue resistance, and light weight (Yu et al., 2019). It is also noted that the usage of CFRP composites as externally bonded reinforcement for the retrofit of structures become popular among researchers and in the construction sector (Jiang et al., 2014). The introduction of FRP in concrete-filled tubular columns provides superior behavior such as corrosion resistance, good ductility, and comfort for construction have been confirmed by Teng et al., 2007. The introduction of fibers, as well as the wrapping of the specimens, will increase the enhanced properties as reported by (Hadi., 2009). It is also reported that the full wrapping of CFRP results in high cost. Even a few scholars proposed to solve the above problems by partially wrapping CFRP in concrete-filled PVC tubes. (e.g., Harajli., 2006; Ping and Peng., 2006; Yu., 2007).

Composite columns proposed in this study that are CFPT specimens are either fully or partially wrapped by CFRP, shell confining the core concrete. This composite system is lightweight, cost-effective, enhanced load-carrying capacity axially and laterally, and provides superior durability characteristics, which allows a possible suggestion for its applications in pile foundations and bridge piers in a severe environment subjected to seawater conditions. It is reported in the literature that the most of costs are spent on maintaining piling systems and repairing concrete piers. The usage of CFPT columns wrapped by CFRP is regarded as a promising approach to overcoming this problem (Zhang and Hadi., 2020; Micelli, et al., 2015). Concrete-filled FRP tubes exhibit higher ductility this is because of the high strain enhancement ratio noted (Ozbakkaloglu and Vincent., 2014) and it is expensive. CFPT and the external confinement provided by continuous impregnated FRP hoops that may have various spacings were investigated by Toutanji and Sennah., 2002. This kind of hybrid column improves both the failure strain and strength of the concrete. FRP-confined CFPT columns have higher ultimate strain and strength as reported by Fakharifar and Chen (2016).

Wang et al. (2012a) tested cyclic compressive load on two square RC columns of sizes 204 × 204 × 612 mm and 305 × 305 × 915 mm. Enhancement of axial compressive strength capacity due to steel confinement reinforcement is reported. It is also stated that the longitudinal and hoop reinforcement is influenced by the shape of stress-strain curves, loading/reloading paths, and plastic strain. Masia et al. (2004) investigated three different square section sizes (100, 125, and 150 mm) on the FRP evaluated. FRP confinement decreases with increases in cross-sectional size. There is a difference in axial stress-strain responses for the different sizes was confirmed by (Rocca., 2007). The contribution of hoop reinforcement to compressive strength enhancement was reported by Isleem et al. (2018a). It is also reported that the internal hoop steel reinforcing bars were found to be mostly dependent on the cross-sectional size and number of CFRP layers. Isleem et al. (2018a) also extended the effect of steel reinforcement on the strain and loading path of axially loaded columns.

Effect of the internal longitudinal, hoop steel reinforcement and cross-sectional size on the stress-strain behavior of CFRP confined unreinforced and reinforced columns subjected to axial load (Wang et al., 2012b). Results show that the efficiency of confinement is decreased as the cross-sectional sizes increase. Influence of internal longitudinal and hoop steel reinforcement on the compressive strength enhancement as reported by Isleem et al. (2018b). PVC tubes wrapped by FRP provided lateral confinement and created triaxial stress in the concrete, which constrained concrete during dilation and consequently, enhanced its capacity of load bearing when the height-to-diameter ratio is 3 (Toutanji and Sennah 2002). The compressive strength of FRP-confined CFPT columns is based on the fiber type and hoop spacing used externally. CFPT columns with various PVC thicknesses wrapped by two different types of fibers CFRP and GFRP with a height-to-diameter ratio of 2:1 investigated by Mammen and Antony. (2017). They also extended their investigations to two dissimilar patterns of circular and helical wrapping with two different ways of reducing the hoop spacing between FRP. Higher strength was noted for the CFRP circular wrapping with larger PVC thickness. The enhancement of strength and ductility nature of CFPT columns with FRP wraps in which fibers are oriented in the hoop direction was reported by (Fakharifar and Chen, 2017). The higher value of FRP tube thickness or strip used to wrap CFPT leads to a higher improvement in strength and deformation (Gao et al., 2019).

A lot of studies revealed that many advantages of the usage of this kind of composite columns, the interaction and relation models between Concrete, PVC, reinforcement, and CFRP have not been analytically reported. In literature, it is reported that the use of CFRP-confined CFPT column increases the structural performance of concrete; however, the effect of several parameters like concrete compressive strength, PVC tube thickness, column slenderness ratio, and specimen size on the stress and strain of those columns are not exposed properly. There is also no proper discussion about the effect of the CFRP behaviors like thickness, the number of layers, and depth of CFRP wrapping on above said parameters.

1.1 Research significance

This study aimed to investigate analytically the structural performance of CFRP-confined CFPT columns. In the literature, limited studies are available on the effect of confined concrete strength, PVC tube thickness, slenderness ratio, and specimen size on the failure axial load of CFPT columns wrapped with CFRP. However, there are several models available in the literature to estimate the ultimate axial load of CFPT columns without CFRP wrappings. These models are mostly used to estimate the ultimate axial load from confined concrete strength and lateral confining pressure for CFPT columns. Hence, it is necessary to develop a model by considering all these parameters in terms of dimensionless parameters to estimate the failure axial load of CFPT columns wrapped by CFRP. For this purpose, FE simulations are required and the results obtained are compared with experimental results from literature for CFPT columns alone initially. And simulations are extended towards the CFRP-confined CFPT columns.

1.2 Research scope

The objective of this study is to numerically estimate the influencing parameters on the behavior of concrete-filled composite tubes under concentric load. First, the experimental CFPT specimens from the literature are simulated by ABAQUS software (ABAQUS, 2014), and the simulated results like stress-strain curve, failure axial load, and failure modes are compared with experimental results. Secondly, the simulation is extended towards the same CFPT columns partially/fully wrapped by CFRP and simulated results are evaluated. The influence of internal steel reinforcement, unconfined concrete strength, slenderness ratio, specimen size and thickness of PVC tube on load carrying capacity, and strain of CFPT column was investigated. And the study is further extended to the impact of CFRP behaviors (Thickness of CFRP, number of layers of CFRP, and depth of CFRP wrapping) on above said parameters for CCFPT columns are examined.

2 Experimental data base

The first part of the simulated experimental work includes the comparison of the simulated stress-strain model of CFPT columns from the experimental work. A wide-ranging database with a test result of 44 CFPT columns with different unconfined concrete strength, the thickness of PVC tubes, slenderness ratios, and specimen sizes were collected from 8 different studies (Feng and Ditao, 2013; Fang et al., 2020; Chang et al., 2021; Bandyopadhyay et al., 2019; Woldemariam et al., 2019; Alatshan et al., 2022; Gupta, 2013). Experimental stress and strain value from literature for 44 CFPT columns are stipulated using ABAQUS software (ABAQUS, 2014) and compared with simulated stress and strain (Isleem et al., 2022). The summary of controlled specimens used in these investigations are these 44 CFPT specimens and their results are tabulated in Table 1.

TABLE 1

S.NoCodeAuthorSize: D x H x tDcfc'ReinforcementεEPεFPPEPPFP
(mm) x (mm)mmMPaLongitudinalHoopmm/mmmm/mmkNkN
1E01Fang et al. (2020)200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50000.01170.0117972.300935.234
2E02Feng and Ditao (2013)200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø1106Ø1040.01170.0117--
3E03Chang et al. (2021)168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.13000.00940.0119651.522692.922
4E04Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø1040.00490.0054783.500775.380
5E05Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø1040.00650.0079826.500789.345
6E06Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø1040.00840.0108838.000832.456
7E07Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 1000 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø1040.00490.0054721.500726.726
8E08Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 1000 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø1040.00650.0079759.500753.671
9E09Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 1000 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø1040.00840.0108808.000796.359
10E10Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1106Ø1040.00470.0050809.500798.143
11E11Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1106Ø1040.00600.0072810.500819.311
12E12Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1106Ø1040.00770.0098864.500875.965
13E13Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 750 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø1040.00490.0054755.500748.143
14E14Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 750 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø1040.00650.0079807.000763.428
15E15Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)160 × 750 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø1040.00840.0108837.000802.379
16E16Woldemariam et al. (2019)63 × 126 × 2.558.010.50000.02110.020975.99084.004
17E17Woldemariam et al. (2019)90 × 180 × 3.084.010.50000.01810.0178147.250149.004
18E18Woldemariam et al. (2019)110 × 220 × 3.0104.010.50000.01520.0147209.070195.734
19E19Woldemariam et al. (2019)140 × 280 × 3.0134.010.50000.01250.0116323.140277.802
20E20Woldemariam et al. (2019)63 × 126 × 2.558.013.79000.01700.016985.63090.309
21E21Woldemariam et al. (2019)90 × 180 × 3.084.013.79000.01470.0143170.470159.691
22E22Woldemariam et al. (2019)110 × 220 × 3.0104.013.79000.01240.0118235.690215.149
23E23Woldemariam et al. (2019)140 × 280 × 3.0134.013.79000.01030.0093365.690305.374
24E24Woldemariam et al. (2019)63 × 126 × 2.558.016.89000.01460.014489.53096.237
25E25Woldemariam et al. (2019)90 × 180 × 3.084.016.89000.01260.0122181.190171.900
26E26Woldemariam et al. (2019)110 × 220 × 3.0104.016.89000.01080.0100256.500234.223
27E27Woldemariam et al. (2019)140 × 280 × 3.0134.016.89000.00900.0078378.180327.540
28E28Woldemariam et al. (2019)63 × 126 × 2.558.020.13000.01280.0125100.140101.846
29E29Woldemariam et al. (2019)90 × 180 × 3.084.020.13000.01120.0105195.170187.107
30E30Woldemariam et al. (2019)110 × 220 × 3.0104.020.13000.00960.0086281.850250.976
31E31Woldemariam et al. (2019)140 × 280 × 3.0134.020.13000.00800.0067431.180363.076
32E32Woldemariam et al. (2019)63 × 126 × 2.558.024.12000.01130.0107108.250109.618
33E33Woldemariam et al. (2019)90 × 180 × 3.084.024.12000.00990.0091218.290201.497
34E34Woldemariam et al. (2019)110 × 220 × 3.0104.024.12000.00850.0074311.380274.362
35E35Woldemariam et al. (2019)140 × 280 × 3.0134.024.12000.00720.0057475.160417.995
36E36Alatshan et al. (2022)70 × 158 × 2.066.015.00000.00910.007573.20066.229
37E37Alatshan et al. (2022)100 × 225 × 3.094.015.00000.00960.0081144.100126.331
38E38Alatshan et al. (2022)150 × 338 × 3.0144.015.00000.00710.0053257.800271.573
39E39Alatshan et al. (2022)70 × 158 × 2.066.035.00000.00570.0035128.700131.241
40E40Alatshan et al. (2022)100 × 225 × 3.094.035.00000.00590.0038259.400260.693
41E41Gupta (2013)140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.60000.00720.0049511.000515.973
42E42Gupta (2013)160 × 500 × 4.25151.523.60000.00760.0053639.600584.727
43E43Gupta (2013)140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.50000.00600.0034742.000739.937
44E44Gupta (2013)165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.60000.00740.0096417.000432.914

Summary of confined concrete filled PVC tube without CFRP.

D: Diameter of circular section (mm), H: Height of specimen (mm), Dc: Diameter of the concrete core without PVC, tube (mm), fc’: strength of unconfined concrete cylinder under compression (MPa), εEP: Peak experimental strain (mm/mm), εFP: Peak finite element modeling strain (mm/mm), PEP: Peak Experimental Load (kN), PFP: Peak finite element modeling Load (kN).

The study is extended further to develop simulated CFPT columns wrapped with fully/partially CFRP using ABAQUS software (ABAQUS, 2014). Table 2 provides the summary of the CFRP-wrapped CFPT columns. The parameters varied are thickness, depth, and the number of layers of CFRP on the load-carrying capacity of the column. Based on the CFRP properties, the entire research work is grouped into twelve groups based on the CFRP depth and number of layers of CFRP, for controlled specimens. The depth of CFRP layers varies from 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 100 mm in group 1. With an increase in CFRP depth, there is a decrease in load-carrying capacity is noted. With an increase in the number of layers, the load-carrying capacity of columns increases is noted.

TABLE 2

S.NoGroup codeCodeSize: D x H x tDcfc'ReinforcementCFRPCFRP-depthPFFεFF
(mm) x (mm)mmMPaLongitudinalHoopNo. Of layersThickness/Layers mmTotal thickness mmmmkNmm/mm
45G1E45200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50010.1650.165201214.750.0158
46E46200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50010.1650.165301146.390.0152
47E47200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50010.1650.165401110.960.0148
48E48200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50010.1650.165501086.160.0156
49E49200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50010.1650.165601060.440.0143
50E50200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50020.1650.330201480.340.0155
51E51200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50020.1650.330301375.730.0162
52E52200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50020.1650.330401289.050.0150
53E53200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50020.1650.330501237.100.0166
54E54200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50020.1650.330601188.530.0146
55E55200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50030.1650.495201807.410.0168
56E56200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50030.1650.495301604.010.0170
57E57200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50030.1650.495401468.770.0152
58E58200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50030.1650.495501385.340.0181
59E59200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50030.1650.495601313.120.0148
60E60200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50010.1650.1651001016.740.0144
61E61200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50020.1650.3301001100.160.0145
62E62200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.50030.1650.4951001179.740.0147
63G2E63168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130010.1650.16520870.850.0153
64E64168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130020.1650.330201021.060.0161
65E65168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130030.1650.495201142.670.0162
66E66168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130010.1650.16520789.410.0165
67E67168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130020.1650.33020861.330.0184
68E68168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130030.1650.49520915.750.0193
69E69168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130010.1650.16520772.870.0149
70E70168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130020.1650.33020829.270.0153
71E71168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130030.1650.49520877.920.0155
72E72168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130010.1650.16520744.870.0152
73E73168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130020.1650.33020775.710.0159
74E74168 × 588 × 5.0158.034.130030.1650.49520789.210.0164
75G3E75140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600010.1650.16520664.380.0154
76E76140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600020.1650.33020827.820.0131
77E77140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600030.1650.495201062.920.0155
78E78140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600010.1650.16520583.330.0155
79E79140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600020.1650.33020692.320.0148
80E80140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600030.1650.49520795.620.0139
81E81140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600010.1650.16520551.900.0147
82E82140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600020.1650.33020615.600.0147
83E83140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600030.1650.49520680.290.0142
84E84140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600010.1650.16520518.180.0150
85E85140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600020.1650.33020548.250.0145
86E86140 × 500 × 3.9132.228.600030.1650.49520567.220.0145
87G4E87140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500010.1650.16520787.570.0155
88E88140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500020.1650.33020964.420.0159
89E89140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500030.1650.495201140.870.0152
90E90140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500010.1650.16520713.140.0156
91E91140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500020.1650.33020803.320.0155
92E92140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500030.1650.49520895.950.0144
93E93140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500010.1650.16520674.900.0160
94E94140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500020.1650.33020740.420.0149
95E95140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500030.1650.49520795.040.0141
96E96140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500010.1650.16520652.020.0154
97E97140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500020.1650.33020678.380.0149
98E98140 × 500 × 3.9132.243.500030.1650.49520691.980.0147
99G5E99160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000010.1650.16520773.870.0150
100E100160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000020.1650.330201013.800.0153
101E101160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000030.1650.495201243.300.0150
102E102160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000010.1650.16520687.870.0151
103E103160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000020.1650.33020818.530.0141
104E104160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000030.1650.49520958.580.0142
105E105160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000010.1650.16520651.050.0142
106E106160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000020.1650.33020729.860.0143
107E107160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000030.1650.49520809.410.0135
108E108160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000010.1650.16520613.390.0143
109E109160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000020.1650.33020648.490.0143
110E110160 × 500 × 4.25151.530.000030.1650.49520685.960.0133
111G6(P1)E11190 × 180 × 3.084.010.500010.1650.165180427.230.0174
112E11290 × 180 × 3.084.010.500020.1650.330180717.770.0203
113E11390 × 180 × 3.084.010.500030.1650.4951801016.140.0233
114E11490 × 180 × 3.084.010.500010.1650.16520275.630.0146
115E11590 × 180 × 3.084.010.500020.1650.33020410.950.0158
116E11690 × 180 × 3.084.010.500030.1650.49520519.450.0158
117E11790 × 180 × 3.084.010.500010.1650.16520202.680.0140
118E11890 × 180 × 3.084.010.500020.1650.33020232.710.0131
119E11990 × 180 × 3.084.010.500030.1650.49520257.780.0124
120G6(P2)E12090 × 180 × 3.084.024.120010.1650.165180452.630.0171
121E12190 × 180 × 3.084.024.120020.1650.330180709.710.0188
122E12290 × 180 × 3.084.024.120030.1650.4951801007.070.0219
123E12390 × 180 × 3.084.024.120010.1650.16520310.410.0147
124E12490 × 180 × 3.084.024.120020.1650.33020420.560.0151
125E12590 × 180 × 3.084.024.120030.1650.49520536.860.0157
126E12690 × 180 × 3.084.024.120010.1650.16520241.710.0142
127E12790 × 180 × 3.084.024.120020.1650.33020255.790.0139
128E12890 × 180 × 3.084.024.120030.1650.49520264.830.0131
129G6(P3)E129110 × 220 × 3.0104.010.500010.1650.165220535.570.0166
130E130110 × 220 × 3.0104.010.500020.1650.330220885.240.0188
131E131110 × 220 × 3.0104.010.500030.1650.4952201244.530.0213
132E132140 × 280 × 3.0134.010.500010.1650.165280707.610.0157
133E133140 × 280 × 3.0134.010.500020.1650.3302801148.140.0174
134E134140 × 280 × 3.0134.010.500030.1650.4952801599.290.0193
135G7E13570 × 158 × 2.066.015.000010.1650.165158294.620.0187
136E13670 × 158 × 2.066.015.000020.1650.330158518.800.0218
137E137100 × 225 × 3.094.015.000010.1650.165225434.670.0174
138E138100 × 225 × 3.094.015.000020.1650.330225750.630.0197
139E139150 × 338 × 3.0144.015.000010.1650.165338679.420.0156
140E140150 × 338 × 3.0144.015.000020.1650.3353381178.640.0180
141E14170 × 158 × 2.066.035.000010.1650.165158301.040.0182
142E14270 × 158 × 2.066.035.000020.1650.330158515.090.0211
143E143100 × 225 × 3.094.035.000010.1650.165225495.830.0164
144E144100 × 225 × 3.094.035.000020.1650.330225802.390.0185
145G8(P1)E145160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.1655001260.620.0168
146E146160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.16520999.390.0150
147E147160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.16520917.700.0149
148E148160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.16520869.740.0148
149E149160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.16520820.040.0147
150E150160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.3305001781.510.0179
151E151160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.330201227.560.0147
152E152160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.330201055.100.0140
153E153160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.33020962.250.0142
154E154160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.33020866.800.0140
155E155160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.3305002361.590.0198
156E156160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.330201466.440.0147
157E157160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.330201177.140.0134
158E158160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.330201036.670.0136
159E159160 × 500 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.33020889.180.0134
160G8(P2)E160160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.1655001291.100.0172
161E161160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.165201033.320.0153
162E162160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.16520948.520.0147
163E163160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.16520903.120.0147
164E164160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.16520852.790.0149
165E165160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.3305001815.240.0185
166E166160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.330201267.860.0149
167E167160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.330201088.550.0139
168E168160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.330201000.450.0145
169E169160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.33020905.530.0144
170E170160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.3305002366.550.0199
171E171160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.330201498.900.0147
172E172160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.330201219.370.0133
173E173160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.330201082.600.0138
174E174160 × 500 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.33020935.890.0137
175G8(P3)E175160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.1655001316.280.0174
176E176160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.165201068.280.0150
177E177160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.16520987.200.0150
178E178160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.16520942.920.0150
179E179160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10410.1650.16520893.810.0150
180E180160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.3305001832.250.0187
181E181160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.330201303.900.0149
182E182160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.330201131.630.0142
183E183160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.330201042.180.0143
184E184160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10420.1650.33020952.230.0143
185E185160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.4955002405.210.0206
186E186160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.495201550.670.0150
187E187160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.495201260.470.0133
188E188160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.495201133.500.0140
189E189160 × 500 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1106Ø10430.1650.49520989.830.0137
190G8(P4)E190160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.165201009.450.0168
191E191160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.16520922.300.0166
192E192160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.16520872.360.0152
193E193160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.16520813.170.0188
194E194160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201257.690.0172
195E195160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201062.860.0159
196E196160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.33020960.760.0153
197E197160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.33020852.020.0215
198E198160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.495201492.940.0174
199E199160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.495201189.960.0152
200E200160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.495201036.380.0144
201E201160 × 1000 × 2.3155.436.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.49520873.300.0203
202G8(P5)E202160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.165201045.740.0174
203E203160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.16520954.360.0167
204E204160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.16520904.990.0154
205E205160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.16520846.410.0189
206E206160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201289.680.0169
207E207160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201100.600.0157
208E208160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.33020998.970.0153
209E209160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.33020888.530.0214
210E210160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.495201537.370.0175
211E211160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.495201234.170.0151
212E212160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.495201081.430.0144
213E213160 × 1000 × 3.7152.636.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.49520913.260.0209
214G8(P6)E214160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.165201084.090.0169
215E215160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.16520993.640.0167
216E216160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.16520944.340.0159
217E217160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.16520884.890.0194
218E218160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201324.900.0166
219E219160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201138.510.0151
220E220160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201043.250.0153
221E221160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.33020928.590.0211
222E222160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.495201572.690.0173
223E223160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.495201280.920.0150
224E224160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.495201130.970.0145
225E225160 × 1000 × 5.4149.236.4010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.49520960.030.0204
226G9(P1)E226200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201497.350.0163
227E227200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201441.090.0161
228E228200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201394.810.0157
229E229200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201366.710.0167
230E230200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201346.280.0157
231E231200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201307.270.0168
232E232200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330201774.400.0163
233E233200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330201664.990.0160
234E234200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330201587.150.0160
235E235200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330201519.680.0179
236E236200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330201480.470.0155
237E237200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330201392.940.0159
238E238200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495202070.220.0168
239E239200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495201903.550.0165
240E240200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495201782.420.0163
241E241200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495201679.680.0195
242E242200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495201617.720.0158
243E243200 × 500 × 7.8184.428.5010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495201473.210.0157
244E9(P2)E244200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201793.850.0159
245E245200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201739.750.0159
246E246200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201703.040.0155
247E247200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201675.390.0159
248E248200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201655.700.0155
249E249200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19410.1650.165201607.170.0156
250E250200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330202063.350.0163
251E251200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330201956.430.0163
252E252200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330201876.560.0159
253E253200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330201817.210.0173
254E254200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330201782.720.0159
255E255200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19420.1650.330201688.750.0154
256E256200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495202339.820.0167
257E257200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495202164.470.0162
258E258200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495202053.090.0162
259E259200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495201960.780.0187
260E260200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495201904.140.0158
261E261200 × 500 × 7.8184.445.0010Ø2008Ø19430.1650.495201764.360.0159
262G10(P1)E262165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600010.1650.1654951108.620.0160
263E263165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600010.1650.16515732.060.0153
264E264165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600010.1650.16515702.110.0162
265E265165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600010.1650.16515671.220.0162
266E266165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600010.1650.16515654.610.0162
267E267165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600010.1650.16515643.730.0145
268E268165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600020.1650.3304951608.020.0163
269E269165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600020.1650.33015836.750.0173
270E270165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600020.1650.33015781.440.0170
271E271165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600020.1650.33015723.190.0170
272E272165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600020.1650.33015685.930.0180
273E273165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600020.1650.33015656.650.0155
274E274165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600030.1650.4954952012.640.0159
275E275165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600030.1650.49515942.480.0189
276E276165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600030.1650.49515856.090.0180
277E277165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600030.1650.49515769.380.0178
278E278165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600030.1650.49515714.950.0194
279E279165 × 495 × 4.0157.033.600030.1650.49515669.640.0157
280G10(P2)E280165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200010.1650.1654951366.850.0161
281E281165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200010.1650.165151061.350.0154
282E282165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200010.1650.165151035.110.0157
283E283165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200010.1650.165151002.380.0158
284E284165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200010.1650.16515981.080.0163
285E285165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200020.1650.3304951829.000.0161
286E286165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200020.1650.330151138.000.0169
287E287165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200020.1650.330151096.070.0165
288E288165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200020.1650.330151038.840.0167
289E289165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200020.1650.33015999.960.0176
290E290165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200030.1650.4954952270.810.0161
291E291165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200030.1650.495151216.700.0175
292E292165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200030.1650.495151149.330.0174
293E293165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200030.1650.495151065.960.0177
294E294165 × 495 × 4.0157.067.200030.1650.495151011.500.0190
295G11E295160 × 750 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.1657501242.210.0169
296E296160 × 750 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.1657501274.240.0176
297E297160 × 750 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1206Ø11410.1650.1657501304.980.0178
298E298160 × 750 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.4957502331.860.0192
299E299160 × 750 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.4957502310.140.0193
300E300160 × 750 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1206Ø11430.1650.4957502330.700.0197
301G12E301160 × 1000 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201740.130.0174
302E302160 × 1000 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201771.880.0177
303E303160 × 1000 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201790.430.0180
304E304160 × 1000 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201196.840.0167
305E305160 × 1000 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201256.440.0175
306E306160 × 1000 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201265.090.0168
307E307160 × 1000 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201007.960.0153
308E308160 × 1000 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201067.890.0161
309E309160 × 1000 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.330201092.080.0156
310E310160 × 1000 × 2.3155.431.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.33020907.520.0149
311E311160 × 1000 × 3.7152.631.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.33020967.210.0156
312E312160 × 1000 × 5.4149.231.3010Ø1206Ø11420.1650.33020996.590.0149

Summary of confined concrete filled PVC tube with CFRP.

D: Diameter of circular section (mm), H: Height of specimen (mm), Dc: Diameter of the concrete core without PVC, tube (mm), fc’: strength of unconfined concrete cylinder under compression (MPa), εFF: Failure finite element modeling strain (mm/mm), PFF: Failure finite element modeling Load (kN), CFRP, Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer.

For group 2, for the same specimens, the CFRP total thickness and number of layers are varied, whereas the depth of CFRP is kept constant. With the increase in the number of layers, there is an increase in the load-carrying capacity of the specimen is observed. For group 3, the load-carrying capacity of CFPT columns increases with an increase in the number of layers, and the load-carrying capacity decreases with an increase in CFRP depth. Similar to group 3, group 4 has a similar load-carrying capacity behavior, but with the increase in confined concrete strength, an increase in load-carrying capacity is observed.

Group 5, shows that an increase in the number of layers increases the load-carrying capacity of CCFPT columns, whereas an increase in the depth of CFRP layers, results in a decrease in load-carrying capacity is observed. And also, an increase in the number of layers up to 40 mm depth of CFRP layers results in a decrease in the strain of CCFPT columns are noted, and after that, there is a decrease in strain value is decreased. With an increase in height of CCFPT columns, there is a decrease in load-carrying capacity for group 6 is noted, whereas an increase in confined concrete strength increases load-carrying capacity. There are three subgroups were noted for group 6, with two subgroups having different confined concrete strengths and the same height of columns whereas the third subgroup has different heights of columns with the same confined concrete strength.

For group 7, the parameters like PVC thickness, specimen height, number of layers, and CFRP depths are varied. The second highest ultimate strain value is noted in group 7 when compared to all other groups. There are two major subgroups are noted for group 8 with two different confined concrete compressive strengths. Each subgroup has three different subgroups based on the PVC thickness. Therefore, six subgroups are noted in group 8. With an increase in confined concrete strength, there an increase in the load-carrying capacity is observed. There are two major subgroups are noted for group 9 with two different confined concrete compressive strengths. There are three subgroups for the number of layers. In each sub-group, there is an increase in the depth of CFRP layers there is a decrease in load-carrying capacity is observed. With an increase in the number of layers, there is an increase in load-carrying capacity is noted. Similar to group 9, group 10 has the same trend but the PVC thickness is less. Two major groups are noted with group 10 but the behavior remains similar. The load-carrying capacity of columns increases with an increase in PVC thickness as noted in group 11 for layer 1, whereas for 3 layers the load-carrying capacity remains the same. Group 12 has four different depths of CFRP layers with an increase in depth resulting in a decrease in load-carrying capacity. An increase in PVC thickness results in an increase in the load-carrying capacity of the column is noted.

3 Finite element modelling

3.1 Element and interaction

3.1.1 Finite element type

The S4R shell element was used to model the hollow PVC tube, to accurately predict its deformation. The S4R element has six degrees of freedom at every node. However, the concrete core was simulated with a C3D8R element. Two rigid plates were modeled at the top and bottom of the composite column. The bottom plate was fixed, while the top rigid plate has the freedom to move downward to transfer axial load. Implementation of a good mesh size would lead to accurate calculation within a period.

3.1.2 Interface

The surface-to-surface contact model was employed to model the interactions between the external surface of the concrete core and the internal surface of the PVC tube. Meanwhile, hard contact interaction was utilized in the normal direction, which prevents compressive state penetration by the concrete and PVC elements. However, the interaction between the PVC and concrete was regarded as a “Tie” (Ozkilic et al., 2022). Two reference points RP1 and RP2 were attached to the rigid plates.

3.1.3 Boundary conditions and load applications

The reference point at the top rigid plate was set to have freedom of vertical displacement, while in the other directions freedom was constrained. The reference point at the bottom rigid plate was constrained in all degrees of freedom. The vertical displacement was modeled to simulate the axial loadings. For the eccentric load conditions, the axial load was applied at 20, 30, 40, and 50 away from the central axis.

3.2 Material models

3.2.1 Confined concrete

The concrete core is confined by the PVC tube. Hence, it was modeled as a confined concrete. Under load, concrete transit from the elastic stage to the plastic stage and then fails. In the elastic region, the constitutive model of the concrete was expressed by its elastic modulus, and Poisson’s ratio . Mostly, Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 is set for concrete. The elastic modulus of the concrete was deduced from Eq. 1 as recommended by (ACI Standards, 2019).Where is the cylinder compressive strength of concrete

Beyond the elastic limit, transitions of concrete to the plastic region begins, which makes interaction between concrete and PVC tubes starts. At this stage, there exist interactions and contact pressure between the PVC tube’s inner surface and the outer surface of the concrete due to the plastic expansion of the concrete. In this case, a confined peak strain model Concrete Damage Plasticity Model (CDPM) in ABAQUS was used to simulate the concrete core (Raza et al., 2019; Ozkilic et al., 2021a). CDPM utilizes the two main failure criteria viz., tensile cracking and compressive crushing (Ozkilic et al., 2021b; Ozkilic et al., 2021c). The constitutive relations of the concrete were expressed by plastic flow potential, yield surface function, and softening rule/strain hardening. The plastic flow potential was expressed by the dilation angle and flow potential eccentricity (e), while the ratio of biaxial compressive strength to the uniaxial compressive strength of concrete and the ratio of tensile meridian second stress invariant to the compression meridian denotes the yield surface function. However, the confinement of the concrete core by the PVC tube was defined with the confinement factor, . The parameters are presented in Table 3. Stress and strain for the concrete used for this investigation are shown in Figure 1.

TABLE 3

ΨKcefbo/fc’µ
35°0.6670.11.160.0002

Concrete damaged plasticity parameters.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

Stress-strain curve for unconfined and confined concrete.

At the onset of loading, the constraint of the PVC tube on the concrete core was not considered, therefore, the stress state of the concrete core is comparable to the unconfined concrete. Therefore, Eq. 2 (Papanikolaou and Kappos, 2007) was used to describe the ascending stress-strain response curve till the peak stress. The strain of the confined concrete at peak first peak load ( is derived from Eq. 3. In this study numerical simulation, the elastic stress response equates to 45%–50% of the maximum concrete cylinder strength for confined and unconfined concrete.

Upon reaching the peak stress, the response curve became a plateau, which indicated the onset of the development of the plastic response stage. The plateau proceeded and the concrete core expands laterally. The lateral expansion was resisted by the PVC tube. The model proposed by Isleem et al. (2022) through multi-linear regression analysis was used to describe the strain of the confined concrete core.

3.2.2 PVC

The stress-strain response and softening rule of PVC plastic would be different from that of concrete. PVC plastic is a ductile material with large strain. It is regarded as an isotropic material due to its similar properties in all directions. The PVC tube is modeled as a von mises material with isotropic hardening. For the effective modeling of the material, it is imperative to define the parameters of yield strength, Poisson ratio, elastic modulus, and inelastic strain for the elastic and plastic material definition. As reported, the test data of PVC employed are presented in Table 4; Figure 2.

TABLE 4

AuthorPoisson’s ratioModulus of elasticity (GPa)Ultimate strength (MPa)Thickness of the PVC tube (mm)
Woldemariam et al. (2019)0.3393.6150.102.50, 3.00
Gupta, (2013)0.3803.3827.5–52.03.90, 4.25
Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019)0.3803.3833.162.30, 3.70, 5.40
Alatshan et al. (2022)0.3422.03833.4–34.22.00, 3.00
Fang et al. (2020)0.403.1668.04.25
Chang et al. (2021)0.4004.8329.015.00
Feng and Diato (2013)0.3753.1562.003.90
Guo et al. (2008)0.343.6850.007.80

Test data for PVC tube.

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

Stress-strain response for PVC material used for the present study.

3.2.3 Steel material

Steel is used for the end plates and reinforcement bars. The density of hoop and longitudinal steel used in this investigation is 7850 kg/m3. Young’s modulus of steel is 2 × 105 N/mm2 and Poisson’s ratio of 0.20 is used for this investigation at the elastic stage. Whereas at the plastic stage of steel, the yield stress of steel is 500 N/mm2 and the plastic strain is zero. Reinforcement is embedded in the whole model with fractional exterior tolerance of 0.05.

3.2.4 Carbon fiber reinforced polymer

CFRP is viewed as an orthotropic material frequently. High tensile strength is noted, in the longitudinal direction and displays an elastic behavior, but the compressive strength of CFRP is almost neglected. Therefore, the CFRP properties are specified using the “LAMINA” material type. The failure mode of CFRP was the tensile fracture, so the damage behavior of CFRP must be considered. The tensile failure stress of CFRP is considered as 3612 MPa and the corresponding tensile failure strain is 0.016125 is used for this analytical investigation. Similar tensile failure stress and young’s modulus were reported by Xu et al. (2021). CFRP was chosen as the wrapped material partially/fully, with a different number of layers of the CFPT columns. The mass density of CFRP used in this investigation is 1.7 × 10−9 kg/m3 and the thickness of each layer is 20 mm. The properties of CFRP used in this investigation are tabulated in Table 5.

TABLE 5

Youngs modulus (MPa)Poisson’s ratioShear modulus (MPa)
E12E13E23µ12µ13µ23G12G13G23
224,00018,58118,5810.200.200.3012,57612,5767147

Properties of CFRP used in this investigation.

3.3 Boundary conditions and types of loadings

All degrees of freedom on the bottom of the columns in models are constrained. Concentric load is applied on the top of the columns along the main axis of the column under displacement mode. Boundary conditions on the top surfaces with displacement on the X-axis and Y-axis are zero. On the top of the column specimen, the displacement along the main axis is allowed only. Whereas rotation along all three axes is set to be free. For the bottom surface, the displacement and rotation are arrested on all three axes.

3.4 Meshing

The sweep technique creates a three-dimensional mesh by moving a two-dimensional mesh along a sweep path (3DS., 2014). Elements of 10 mm in size and the Sweep technique have been used for the concrete core. Elements of 15 mm and 20 mm in size and the Sweep Technique have been used for PVC pipe in columns with and without gaps at two ends, respectively. Figure 3 shows the finite element modeling for CFPT tubes.

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 3

Finite element type, loading conditions, boundary conditions, and contact surface.

4 Model validation

4.1 Failure modes

The comparison of the experimental data and numerical results presents the accuracy and precision of the finite element model for validation. Figure 4 presents the comparison of the test results and numerical simulations. It can be observed that there is a correlation in the failure mode.

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 4

Comparison of failure mode of FE and Experimental results. Note: Experimental failure modes were reported by Woldemariam et al. (2019).

4.2 Discussions of experimental and model results

In the literature, it is noted that the results provided by FE models are higher when compared to that of experimental test value (Isleem et al., 2022). Figure 5 represents the axial strain load curves obtained from experimental testing and FE simulation results for specimens with and without CFRP wrapping on CFPT columns selected from (Guo et al., 2008; Woldemariam et al., 2019; Gupta, 2013; Feng and Ditao, 2013). A comparison of results displayed in Figures 5A–F is selected based on variations in different parameters from different authors of literature. It is also noted that the experimental results and simulation results are having an almost similar pattern for the axial strain-axial load curve and it is also confirmed in the literature (Isleem et al., 2022).

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 5

Comparison of selected response and FE results of CFPT Specimens.

Both CFPT (Figures 5A–C) and CCFPT (Figures 5D–F) show a similar pattern of axial load–strain curve for both experimental and FE results.

5 Test results and discussions

5.1 Failure modes

Two different types of specimens are simulated with and without longitudinal reinforcement. Specimens are wrapped with CFRP at different depths and layers. When a specimen without longitudinal reinforcement is loaded axially, the cracks are initiated at mid-height when the peak load is reached. After peak load carrying capacity was reached, followed by spalling of concrete but it is prevented by CFRP wraps until rupture as shown in Figures 6A–F. Aksoylu et al., 2022 compared the experimental and numerical investigation of load bearing capacity of FRP composites.

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 6

Failure modes for CFPT columns without longitudinal reinforcement.

The failure mode of unconfined CFPT and CCFPT columns was first initiated with mid-height cracks. On further loading, the maximum load-carrying capacity is reached, followed by concrete spalling and buckling of longitudinal reinforcement as shown in Figures 7A–L. Once bucking of longitudinal reinforcement was reached but buckling of columns is prevented until the eventual rupture of the CFRP wraps. At the mid-height of the specimens, the rupture of the wraps originated around the corners of the column sections. Similar behavior of failure modes is reported in the literature (Wang and Wu., 2008; Abbasnia et al., 2012).

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 7

Failure modes for CFRP-wrapped CFPT columns with longitudinal reinforcement (Group 12).

5.2 Axial load–axial strain

Specimens having CFRP wraps leads to an increase in the axial strength but with a very low rate likened to the axial strain. Peak axial strain varied more than thrice that of unconfined concrete and these results are consistent with other results reported in the literature (Hany et al., 2016; Isleem et al., 2018a). Specimens unreinforced by CFRP wrapping experienced gains in the peak strain, whereas there is no observed improvement in their peak strain. Confined specimens displayed a decreased strength due to the low resistance of the CFRP wrap against the dilation and lateral expansion of the core concrete. Stress-strain test results correspond to specimens confined with a similar number of CFRP layers wrapped with different hoop reinforcements showing different behavior. It is also noted that the axial stress and strain for the reinforced and unreinforced column shows different behavior. Confinement provided by the external CFRP wrapping decreases as the cross-sectional specimen column increases and is also confirmed by Isleem et al. (2018b). An increase in the shear capacity of the reinforced concrete section with CFRP wrapping is reported by Mhanna et al. (2020).

6 Influence of the tested parameters

6.1 Effect of CFRP hoop spacing

The ultimate axial load-carrying capacity increases with the increase in the number of CFRP layers as noted in Figure 8. Additionally, an increase in CFRP hoop spacing results in a decrease in ultimate axial load-carrying capacity. When CFRP thickness increased from 20 mm to 100 mm, the ultimate axial load decreased from 1807.41 kN to 1179.74 kN for 3-layer CFRP, but for 1-layer CFRP, the ultimate axial load decreased from 1214.75 kN to 1016.74 kN is reported from Figure 8A. A decrease in the ultimate axial load is in the range of 1.53, 1.35, and 1.19 times for 3-layer, 2-layer, and 1-layer CFRP from 20mm to 100 mm hoop spacing. From Figure 8B, it is noted that the ultimate axial load decreases in the range of 1.45, 1.32, and 1.17 times for 3-layer, 2-layer, and 1-layer CFRP from 29 mm to 127 mm hoop spacing. Ultimate axial load decreases in the range of 1.87, 1.51, and 1.28 times for the 3-layer, 2-layer and 1-layer CFRP from 20mm to 100 mm hoop spacing for group 3 is noted in Figure 8C.

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 8

Effect of CFRP hoop spacing on failure axial load.

From

Figure 8D

, it is noted that the ultimate axial load decreases in the range of 1.81, 1.56, and 1.26 times for 3-layer, 2-layer, and 1-layer CFRP from 20 mm to 100 mm hoop spacing. Ultimate axial load decreases in the range of 3.94, 3.08, and 2.11 times for the 3-layer, 2-layer and 1-layer CFRP from 0mm to 60 mm hoop spacing for group 6 (part 1) is noted in

Figure 8E

. From

Figure 8F

, it is noted that the ultimate axial load decreases in the range of 3.80, 2.77, and 1.87 times for 3-layer, 2-layer, and 1-layer CFRP from 0mm to 60 mm hoop spacing. From

Figure 8

, the following results are summarized:

  • • The effect of the slenderness ratio is more on the hoop spacing in terms of the ultimate axial load

  • • The impact of PVC tube thickness is moderate on the hoop spacing in terms of ultimate axial load

  • • A slight influence of confined concrete strength on the hoop spacing in terms of ultimate axial load

When hoop spacing is increased from 0 mm to 100 mm, an ultimate axial load decrease from 1260.62 kN to 820.04 kN, 1781.51 kN–866.80 kN, and 2361.59 kN–889.18 kN for 1-layer, 2-layer, and 3-layer CFRP is observed from Figure 9A. Decreases in the ultimate axial load for 1-layer, 2-layer, and 3-layer CFRP are in the range of 1.54, 2.05, and 2.65 times for 0 mm when compared to 100 mm hoop spacing. From Figure 9B, it is noted that the decrease in the ultimate axial load for 1-layer, 2-layer, and 3-layer CFRP is in the range of 1.51, 2.01, and 2.53 times for 0 mm when compared to 100 mm hoop spacing.

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 9

Effect of CFRP hoop spacing on failure axial load with steel reinforcement.

A decrease in the failure axial load for 1-layer, 2-layer, and 3-layer CFRP is in the range of 1.47, 1.92, and 2.43 times for 0 mm, when compared to 100 mm hoop spacing, is observed in Figure 9C. With an increase in PVC thickness, there is an increase in failure axial load, and also, the rate of reduction of failure axial load to increase in CFRP layers is slow is observed. From Figure 9D, it is noted that the decrease in the failure axial load for 1-layer, 2-layer, and 3-layer CFRP is in the range of 1.24, 1.48, and 1.71 times for 20 mm when compared to 120 mm hoop spacing.

A decrease in the failure axial load for 1-layer, 2-layer, and 3-layer CFRP is in the range of 1.24, 1.45, and 1.68 times for 20 mm, when compared to 120 mm hoop spacing, is observed in

Figure 9E

. From

Figure 9F

, it is noted that the decrease in the failure axial load for 1-layer, 2-layer, and 3-layer CFRP is in the range of 1.23, 1.43, and 1.64 times for 20 mm when compared to 120 mm hoop spacing. From

Figure 9

, the following results are summarized:

  • • The effect of PVC tube thickness is more on the hoop spacing in terms of failure axial load under all other factors are constant

  • • The impact of the confined concrete load is moderate on the hoop spacing in terms of failure axial load and all other factors are constant.

The effect of CFRP hoop spacing on the failure axial load for the CCFPT columns with reinforcement is shown in

Figure 10

. A decrease in the failure axial load for 1-layer, 2-layer, and 3-layer CFRP is in the range of 1.15, 1.27, and 1.41 times for 20 mm, when compared to 100 mm hoop spacing, is observed in

Figure 10A

. From

Figure 10B

, it is noted that the decrease in the failure axial load for 1-layer, 2-layer, and 3-layer CFRP is in the range of 1.12, 1.22, and 1.33 times for 20 mm when compared to 100 mm hoop spacing. A decrease in the failure axial load for 1-layer, 2-layer, and 3-layer CFRP is in the range of 1.72, 2.45, and 3.01 times for 0 mm, when compared to 105 mm hoop spacing, is observed in

Figure 10C

. From

Figure 10D

, it is noted that the decrease in the failure axial load for 1-layer, 2-layer, and 3-layer CFRP is in the range of 1.39, 1.83, and 2.25 times for 0 mm when compared to 80 mm hoop spacing. From

Figure 10

, the following results are summarized:

  • • Increase in failure load carrying capacity of a specimen with reinforcement, when confined concrete strength is increased.

  • • The effect of spacing between main longitudinal bars and hoop bars on the failure load carrying capacity of specimens is noted.

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 10

Effect of CFRP hoop spacing on axial load.

Confinement of CFRP wraps directed to an increase in the axial load but with a very low rate compared to the axial strain is already reported by Isleem et al. (2018a). It is also reported that the addition of CFRP wrapping not only increases the lateral confinement but also the compressive strength and ductility could be improved drastically (Jin et al., 2020). Usage of the optimum amount of CFRP in reinforced concrete structures (Gemi et al., 2022b).

6.2 Effect of CFRP depth

The influence of the overall depth of CFRP on the failure axial load of unreinforced CFPT columns is observed in two different scenarios: 1. CFRP depth is maintained as constant throughout the depth of the specimen (Figure 11A) and 2. CFRP depth is varied throughout the depth of the specimen (Figures 11B, 12A). CFRP depth is kept as constant as 20 mm for group 1 but CFRP hoop spacing is kept as clear to clear distance between CFRP wrapping but it is varied from 20 mm to 100 mm. When the number of layers is increased from 1 to 2 and 3 the failure axial load is increased to 21.86% and 48.79% as compared to layer 1. CFRP hoop spacing is increased as 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm, 60 mm, and 100 mm for layer 1, and the failure axial load is increased by 5.63%, 8.54%, and 10.59% when compared to 20 mm CFRP hoop spacing.

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 11

Effect of failure axial load on CFRP depth.

FIGURE 12

FIGURE 12

Effect of CFRP depth (varying) on axial load (Group 7).

Whereas for layer 2, CFRP hoop spacing increased as 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm, 60 mm, and 100 mm, the failure axial load increased by 7.07%, 12.92%, 16.43%, 19.71%, and 25.68% compared to 20 mm CFRP hoop spacing. When the number of layers is further increased to layer 3, CFRP hoop spacing is increased as 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm, 60 mm, and 100 mm, and failure axial load increased by 11.25%, 18.74%, 23.35%, 27.35%, and 34.73% compared to 20 mm CFRP hoop spacing. From this, it can be concluded, that at constant CFRP depth, with an increase in some layers as layer 3, the increase in failure axial load is higher when compared to layer 1.

CFRP depth is increased from 20 mm to 180 mm, there is an increase in the failure axial load from 202.68 kN to 1016.14 kN for layer 1 is observed. For layer 3, the failure axial load increases from 257.78 kN to 1016.14 kN for group 6 (part 1) for the confined concrete compressive load as 10.5 MPa with CFRP hoop spacing as 20 mm, 60 mm, and 0 mm. An increase in confined concrete compressive strength of 24.12 MPa, there is an increase in failure axial load for group 6 (part 2) is noted. When CFRP wrapping depth is increased there is an increase in failure axial load is noted in Figure 12B. Even though CFRP wrapping depth is kept constant and hoop spacing is increased means the failure axial load also increased but the rate of failure axial load is less.

With increase in CFRP depth from 158 mm to 338 mm, the failure axial load increased from 294.62 kN to 679.43 kN for layer 1, whereas the failure axial load increased from 518.81 kN to 1178.64 kN for layer 2 having confined concrete strength as 15 MPa. Whereas an increase in confined concrete strength to 25 MPa, the failure axial load is increased from 301.04 kN to 495.83 kN for layer 1 and when the number of layers is increased to 2, the failure axial load is increased from 515.09 kN to 802.39 kN. From Figure 12, it is noted that the increase in confined concrete strength results in an increase in the rate of the failure axial load from 1.48 to 1.65 times for layer 1, whereas the rate of the failure axial load increases from 1.45 to 1.56 times for layer 2. It is also noted that with an increase in the number of layers, there is a decrease in the rate of failure axial load. It is also reported in the literature, that the higher failure axial load is noted for 20 mm CFRP depth for circular columns (Vasumathi et al., 2014).

6.3 Effect of PVC tube thickness

When PVC tube thickness is increased from 2.3 mm to 5.4 mm, failure axial load increased from 1260.62 kN to 820.04 kN for layer 1 for full CFRP wrapping to 100 mm CFRP hoop spacing. When the number of layers is increased to layer 2, the failure axial load increases from 1781.51 kN to 866.80 kN for full wrapping to 100 mm CFRP hoop spacing. Failure axial load increased from 2361.59 kN to 889.18 kN for full wrapping to 100 mm CFRP hoop spacing for CFRP layer 3. From Figure 13A, it is noted that for layer 2, the failure axial load increased from 1.41 to 1.06 times when compared to layer 1. Whereas for layer 3, the failure axial load increased from 1.87 to 1.08 times for full CFRP wrapping to 100 mm CFRP hoop spacing for group 8 (part 1, part 2, and part 3).

FIGURE 13

FIGURE 13

Effect of PVC tube thickness.

When PVC tube thickness increased from 2.3 mm to 5.4 mm, the failure axial load increased from 1009.45 kN to 1084.09 kN for 20 mm CFRP hoop spacing having CFRP layer 1. Whereas for 120 mm CFRP hoop spacing, the failure axial load increased from 813.17 kN to 884.89 kN. For layer 2, the failure axial load increased from 1257.69 kN to 1324.90 kN for 20 mm CFRP hoop spacing, and for 120 mm CFRP hoop spacing, the failure axial load increased from 852.02 kN to 928.59 kN. For layer 3, the failure axial load increased from 1492.94 kN to 1572.69 kN for 20 mm CFRP hoop spacing, and for 120 mm CFRP hoop spacing, the failure axial load increased from 873.3 kN to 960.03 kN.

When the number of layers is increased from layer 2 to layer 3, the failure axial load increased by 1.25 times to 1.48 times when compared to layer 1 for 20 mm CFRP hoop spacing. Whereas, for 120 mm CFRP hoop spacing, when the number of layers is increased as 2 and 3, the failure axial load increased 1.22 times and 1.45 times as noted in Figure 13B. An increase in PVC tube thickness results not only increases the failure load-carrying capacity of columns but also influence the stress-strain behavior of the column itself (Abdulla, 2020; Oyawa, et al., 2016). The confinement action of CCFPT columns is reliant on the concrete infill behavior to dilate when loaded, as well as the circular stiffness of the confining member to restrain the enlargement (Oyawa, et al., 2016).

6.4 Effect of column’s slenderness ratio

With an increase in the slenderness ratio, there is an increase in axial load is observed in Figure 14A. Failure axial load for slenderness ratio 12.5 with the CFRP hoop spacing as 20, 40, 60, and 100 mm, the load decreases as 999.39, 917.70, 869.74, and 820.04 kN. When the slenderness ratio is increased to 25, the failure axial load increases by 1.010, 1.005, 1.003, and 0.992 times that of the failure axial load for a slenderness ratio of 12.5 for a PVC tube thickness of 2.3 mm. When PVC tube thickness is increased to 3.7 mm, the failure axial load increases by 1.012, 1.006, 1.002, and 0.993 times for a slenderness ratio of 25 when compared to that of the column having a slenderness ratio of 12.5. On further increasing PVC tube thickness to 5.4 mm, the failure axial load increases by 1.015, 1.007, 1.002, and 0.990 times for a slenderness ratio of 25 when compared to that of columns having a slenderness ratio of 12.5. From this, it can be concluded that, for single-layer CFRP, there is a mild increase in failure axial load when the slenderness ratio is increased twice.

FIGURE 14

FIGURE 14

Effect of the column’s slenderness ratio.

For layer 2, failure axial load for slenderness ratio 12.5 with the CFRP hoop spacing as 20, 40, 60, and 100 mm, the load decreases as 1781.51, 1227.56, 1055.10, and 962.25 kN. When the slenderness ratio is increased to 25, the failure axial load is decreased to 0.706, 0.866, 0.911, and 0.885 times the failure axial load for a slenderness ratio of 12.5 for a PVC tube thickness of 2.3 mm. When PVC tube thickness is increased to 3.7 mm, the failure axial load is decreased to 0.710, 0.868, 0.918, and 0.888 times for a slenderness ratio of 25 when compared to that of a column having a slenderness ratio of 12.5. On further increasing PVC tube thickness to 5.4 mm, the failure axial load is increased as 1.016, 1.006, 1.001, and 0.75 times for a slenderness ratio of 25 when compared to that of columns having a slenderness ratio of 12.5. When the number of CFRP layers is 2, with CFRP depth of 20 mm and 40 mm and PVC tube thickness of 3.7 mm, there is a difference in failure axial load is noted.

From Figure 14B, when CFRP depth is 20 and 40 mm, there is a difference in failure axial load for slenderness ratio is noted. It can be concluded that, with an increase in CFRP depth from 20 mm to 100 mm, there is a decrease in failure axial load is noted with an increase in slenderness ratio. The rate of reduction of failure axial load varies for varying PVC tube thicknesses used.

For three layers of CFRP, the failure axial load behavior is different when compared to two and single-layer CFRP as noted in Figure 14C. Decrease in failure axial load for columns about 6.27% and 3.51% for slenderness ratio of 18.75 and 25 for PVC tube thickness 2.3 mm when compared to columns slenderness ratio of 12.5. Whereas a decrease in failure axial load for 3.7 mm and 5.4 mm is 4.52%, 3.28% and 4.34% and 3.61% for columns having a slenderness ratio of 25 when compared to columns slenderness ratio of 12.5. With an increase in slenderness ratio and increase in PVC thickness, there is a decrease in failure axial load is observed. Whereas from Figure 15, it is noted that with an increase in slenderness ratio, there is an increase in failure axial load and also the rate of increase in failure axial load is slow with an increase in PVC tube thickness observed. With an increase in the slenderness ratio, there is a decrease in the failure axial load capacity of CFPT as reported by Huang, et al. (2022). On a higher slenderness ratio, failure axial load reduction is due to the full utilization of the PVC and concrete material (Huang et al., 2022).

FIGURE 15

FIGURE 15

Effect of slenderness ratio on failure axial load for different PVC thicknesses.

6.5 Effect of CFRP layer

The increase in failure axial load of a column of about 76.09%, 72.69%, and 73.48% for 158, 225, and 338 mm CFRP depth for layer 2, when compared to layer 1 CFRP wrapping, is observed from Figure 16A.

FIGURE 16

FIGURE 16

Effect of axial load on the different number of CFRP layers.

An increase in failure axial load of column specimens of about 71.10% and 61.83% for column specimen diameter as 70 mm and 100 mm for CFRP layer 2 when compared to CFRP layer 1 is observed in Figure 16B. An increase in specimen size with an increase in the number of layers also increases failure axial load. When the number of layers is increased, the failure axial load and failure axial strain of the column specimen is increased as reported by Fakharifar and Chen. (2016). Confining effect of CCFPT increases with an increase in CFRP layers as observed by Jiang et al. (2014).

6.6 Effect of confined concrete strength

An increase in hoop spacing as 20, 40, 60, and 100 mm, for layer 2 results in an increase in failure axial load of about 24.60%, 18.68%, 11.54%, and 5.80% then layer 1 for 28.6 MPa concrete strength is observed from Figure 17A. Whereas for 30 MPa confined concrete strength, there is an increase in failure axial load of 31.00%, 18.99%, 12.11%, and 5.72% for CFRP layer 2 when compared to CFRP layer 1.

FIGURE 17

FIGURE 17

Effect of concrete strength.

On further increase in 34.1 MPa confined concrete strength, there is an increase in failure axial load of 17.25%, 9.11%, 7.30%, and 4.14% for CFRP layer 1 when compared to CFRP layer 2. Increase in confined concrete strength to 43.1 MPa, there is an increase in failure axial load of 22.45%, 12.65%, 9.71%, and 4.04% for CFRP layer 1 when compared to CFRP layer 2. For hoop spacing as 20, 40, 60, and 100 mm, layer 3 results in an increase in failure axial load of about 59.99%, 36.39%, 23.26%, and 9.46% then layer 1 for 28.6 MPa confined concrete strength. On the increase of confined concrete strength to 30 MPa for CFRP layer 3, there is an increase in failure axial load as 60.66%, 39.35%, 24.32%, and 11.83% then CFRP layer 1. On further increase in confined concrete strength to 34.1 MPa for layer 3, there is an increase in failure axial load as 31.21%, 16.00%, 13.59%, and 5.95% then CFRP layer 1. When confined concrete strength is increased to 43.5 MPa for layer 3, there is an increase in failure axial load as 44.86%, 25.63%, 17.80%, and 6.13% then CFRP layer 1 is observed.

It can be observed that the rate of increase in failure axial load is decreased with an increase in confined concrete strength observed for all CFRP layers from Figure 17B. The increase in failure axial load was 45.05%, 14.30%, 11.30%, 7.74%, 4.78%, and 2.01% for CFRP layer 1 for hoop spacing as 0, 30, 40, 60, 80, and 105 mm for 33.6 confined concrete strength then CFRP layer 2 is noted. On the further increase of confined concrete strength to 67.2 MPa for layer 3, there is an increase in failure axial load to 81.54%, 28.75%, 21.93%, 14.62%, and 9.21% then CFRP layer 1. With an increase in the number of layers from layer 1 to layer 3, there is an increase in axial load as twice observed in Figure 17B. When there is an increase in confined concrete strength twice, there is a decrease in failure axial load as twice is noted.

For 28.5 MPa confined concrete strength, for hoop spacing of CFRP layer 2 as 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 120 mm, failure axial load increased as 18.50%, 15.53% 13.79%, 11.19%, and 6.55% then layer 1 is observed from Figure 17C. For hoop spacing of CFRP layer 3 as 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 120 mm, failure axial load increases by 38.26%, 32.09%, 27.79%, 22.90%, 20.16% and 12.69% then layer 3 is observed for 28.5 confined concrete strength. When there is an increase in confined concrete strength to 45 MPa, the rate of increase in failure axial load is decreased when compared to 28.5 MPa confined concrete strength. From this, it is concluded as an increase in confined concrete strength results in an increase in failure axial load but the rate of increase of load is decreased.

7 Analytical modelling

The analytical expression for the confined concrete relates to the concrete strength, PVC material, hoop reinforcement, and CFRP properties. In particular, the models are proposed to calculate the failure stress which corresponds to important parameters.

7.1 Effective lateral confinement pressure

Experimental and FEM tests on CFPT columns have shown that failure stress fcc, is influenced by the longitudinal reinforcing bars, hoop reinforcement bars, and PVC used. Hence, it is necessary to develop a model for determining the failure stress using all these parameters utilizing dimensionless parameters as reported by Wang et al. (2012a). Failure strain of CFRP, the effective rupture strain (εfe) is the most significant. Hence, rupture strain is calculated; , in which εfu, is the ultimate tensile strain of CFRP using coupon tests. The confinement effectiveness of the wraps of CFRP was found to increase with extra layers of wrap of CFRP while it decreased with an increase of cross-sectional size. Based on the experimental results found by Wang et al. (2012a), Kε is taken as 0.80.

Similar to Isleem et al. (2018a), there are four different dimensionless parameters are used to develop a model. One more dimensionless parameter was introduced for CFRP as per Hany et al. (2016). Relative to the unconfined compressive strength of concrete, the dimensionless parameters for the PVC (λpvc), hoop reinforcement (λh), longitudinal reinforcement (λl), CFRP reinforcement (λCFRP) are introduced as followsWhere, , , and is the volumetric ratio of PVC tube, longitudinal, hoop reinforcement, and CFRP reinforcement respectively; the volumetric ratio of the PVC tube is calculated as , t is the thickness of PVC tubes (mm) and D is the diameter of column specimen (mm); the volumetric ratio of the longitudinal reinforcement is calculated as ; the volumetric ratio of the hoop reinforcement is calculated as ; fyl and fyh are yield strength of reinforcement in longitudinal and hoop; fpvc is the PVC yield strength; ECFRP is young’s modulus of CFRP; εCFRP, R is measure strain at which CFRP ruptured in tension. For fully CFRP-wrapped columns, the volumetric ratio is calculated as , where D is the diameter of the circular column specimen section. For columns with partially wrapped CFRP, the volumetric ratio is calculated as , where W is the width of the CFRP strip and S is the spacing between the CFRP strip (Hany et al., 2016).

7.2 Confinement ratio

An analytical model that considers the influence of the various parameters on CFRP confinement provided to circular PVC columns is now introduced. Ultimate stress fcc and ultimate strain εcc denote the stress and strain at CFRP rupture failure correspondingly, and they are the two most significant parameters for the stress-strain model of CFRP-confined concrete. The relationship that relates the ultimate stress of CFRP-confined concrete to the various parameters that would influence its value is mentioned usually as the ultimate strength model. So, in the literature, the relationship between unconfined concrete to confined concrete and longitudinal reinforcement to confined concrete is reported as a linear relationship based on the experimental tests (Wang et al., 2012c).

The following expressions for the failure stress, which depend on the three different dimensionless parameters and slenderness ratio were performed using MINITAB and obtained an R2 value of 0.95. Z is the clear spacing between the CFRP wrapping used for the analytical model.

The effect of the ratio of CFRP wrapping spacing and height of the specimen on the dimensionless parameter λCFRP separately; λCFRP and λPVC respectively are shown in Eqs 8, 9.

7.3 Estimation of CFRP for sufficiently confined concrete

It is known that the effectiveness of CFRP confinement is considerably influenced by three dimensionless parameters which are already discussed in the previous paragraph. Based on multi-parameter regression analysis performed on the test database of 265 specimens, as shown in Figures 18A,B the following expressions (Eqs 10, 11) for assessing the effective CFRP confinement for circular CCFPT columns are therefore proposed, in which the correlation coefficient R2 is 94.44%. This relationship helps to define the lightly confined as a modified confined ratio (MCR) less than 0.39. Therefore, this limit should not be exceeded in practice because it is an ineffective use of CFRP wrap around concrete-filled PVC tube columns.

FIGURE 18

FIGURE 18

Relationship between MCR and fcc/fco from Eq. 5(A) and (B) and MCR and fcc/fco from Eq. 6(C) and (D).

Another multi-parameter regression analysis was performed on the test database and relationships have arrived as shown in Figures 18C,D those relationships are stated in Eqs 12, 13.For assessing the effective CFRP confinement CCFPT columns are therefore proposed, in which the corresponding coefficient of relation is obtained as 95.08%.

8 Evaluation of exiting strength models

The precision of the proposed confinement model for PVC-CFRP columns and other pertinent models accessible in the previous literature was evaluated (Isleem et al., 2022) using two statistical indicators–the average absolute error (AAE) and the mean square error (MSE), are given byWhere, Modi is the model value and expi is the analytical value obtained from the model and experimental measured from specimen i and ns is the total number of test specimens. To compare the different models available for CFRP-wrapped columns and assess their precision in predicting the ultimate strengths. Figure 19 shows a comparison between the analytical and experimental results for the required specimens listed in Table 2. Another comparison of the models available in PVC CFRP-wrapped columns and evaluate their accuracy in predicting the ultimate strengths are shown in Figure 20. Different models from the literature available for CFRP wrapped and CFPT columns show poor relation when compared to the model proposed in Eqs 10, 12.

FIGURE 19

FIGURE 19

(Continued).

FIGURE 20

FIGURE 20

Evaluation of existing models (based on PVC CFRP wrapped models) against the test database.

9 Conclusion

In this study, simulated work on CFPT columns was done to check the appropriateness and concert of CFPT columns for structural applications is analyzed. We took 44 specimens from the literature to determine the ultimate load and ultimate strain from FEM software. CFPT columns are wrapped with CFRP fully or partially for both reinforced or unreinforced specimens and simulated using FEM software to determine the ultimate axial load and ultimate axial strain. Analytical models are developed for predicting ultimate axial load and ultimate axial strain and validated using models available in the literature. Based on the research, the following conclusions are made:

  • • An increase in hoop spacing results in decreases in ultimate axial load. The rate of ultimate axial load decreases with an increase in the number of layers.

  • • For constant depth of CFRP layer, the ultimate axial load decreases with increased hoop spacing

  • • For varying depths of the CFRP layer, the ultimate axial load increases with an increase in CFRP layer depth

  • • An increase in the number of layers increases the ultimate axial load increasing with an increase in PVC tube thickness

  • • An increase in hoop spacing of the CFRP wrap layer results in the ultimate axial load decrease with an increase in PVC tube thickness

  • • No clear conclusion can be drawn for the slenderness ratio of the column, for the ultimate axial load

  • • An increase in the number of CFRP layers results increase in ultimate axial load, with an increase in CFRP depth and column specimen size

  • • An increase in confined concrete strength increases the ultimate axial load.

  • • The ultimate stress model is developed for CFRP CFPT columns with help of dimensionless parameters

  • • The threshold limit for the Modified Confined Pressure ratio for CFRP CFPT columns is developed

This kind of new composite structure has a specific area of application in the construction field subjected to severe exposure conditions of columns and subjected to high lateral loading. CFRP CFPT columns provide a better solution for the columns subjected to lateral loading and poor durability conditions.

Statements

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusion of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: HI, investigation: HI and PJ, methodology: HI and PJ, project administration: HI and PJ, resources: HI and PJ, software: HI and PJ, supervision: HI, validation: PJ, visualization: PJ, SQ, FA, CR, and HN, writing–original draft: PJ, SQ, FA, writing–review and editing: PJ, SQ, FA, and CR, Funding: MS.

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly appreciate the support from Qujing Normal University, Qujing, Yunnan, China, for facilitating the structural concrete laboratory. The authors acknowledge that the research is partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation as part of the World Class Research Center Program: Advanced Digital Technologies (Contract No. 075-15-2022-311 dated 20.04.2022).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Nomenclature

  • Ac

    the cross-sectional area of concrete core (mm2)

  • Ag

    cross-sectional area of concrete column (mm2)

  • CFST

    Concrete Filled Steel Tubes

  • CFPT

    Concrete Filled PVC Tubes

  • RC

    Reinforced Concrete

  • FE

    Finite Element

  • fcc

    Confined Concrete compressive strength (MPa)

  • fco

    Unconfined Concrete compressive strength (MPa)

  • t

    thickness of PVC tube (mm)

  • D

    Diameter of the PVC tube (mm)

  • L/H

    Length/height of the PVC tube (mm)

  • fcc/fco

    confined concrete compressive strength to unconfined concrete compressive strength ratio

  • Dc

    Diameter of the concrete core without PVC tube (mm)

  • fc

    strength of unconfined concrete cylinder under compression (MPa)

  • εEP

    Peak experimental strain (mm/mm)

  • εFP

    Peak finite element modeling strain (mm/mm)

  • PEP

    Peak Experimental Load (kN)

  • PFP

    Peak finite element modeling Load (kN)

  • CDPM

    Concrete Damaged Plastic Model

  • Ψ

    dilation angle

  • Kc

    Shape factor for the yielding surface

  • e

    plastic flow potential eccentricity

  • µ

    Viscosity Parameter

  • fbo/fc

    ratio of biaxial stress to uniaxial stress

  • fc’’

    considered to be 80% of the concrete cylinder strength (MPa)

  • εcc1

    the strain of the confined concrete at the first peak load

  • εc0

    0.002 for unconfined concrete strength at peak load

  • kes

    the ratio of effectively confined concrete area to the confined area

  • fyt

    the yield strength of the steel

  • AAE

    Average Absolute Error

  • fl

    yield stress of longitudinal steel reinforcement (mm2)

  • fh

    yield stress of hoop steel reinforcement (mm2)

  • fpvc

    yield stress of pvc (mm2)

  • Ec

    Young’s modulus of concrete (MPa)

  • λpvc

    dimensionless parameter for the PVC

  • λh

    dimensionless parameter for the hoop reinforcement

  • λl

    dimensionless parameter for the longitudinal reinforcement

  • ρls

    volumetric ratio for the longitudinal reinforcement

  • ρhs

    volumetric ratio for the hoop reinforcement

  • MCR

    Modified Confined Pressure Ratio (MCR)

References

  • 1

    ABAQUS (2014). ABAQUS version 6.14-2. Providence, RI, USA: Dassault systèmes, simulia, 440. Available at: https://www.3ds.com.

  • 2

    AbbasniaR.AhmadiR.ZiaadinyH. (2012). Effect of confinement level, aspect ratio and concrete strength on the cyclic stress-strain behavior of FRP-confined concrete prisms. Compos. Part B Eng.43 (2), 825831. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.11.008

  • 3

    AbbassiF.AhmadF. (2020). Behavior analysis of concrete with recycled tire rubber as aggregate using 3D-digital image correlation. J. Clean. Prod.274, 123074. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123074

  • 4

    AbdullaN. A. (2020). The behaviour of concrete-filled plastic tube under axial compression. Jordon J. Civ. Eng.14 (1), 6981.

  • 5

    ACI Standards (2019). Building conde requirements for structural concrete. United States: American Concrete Institute.

  • 6

    AksoyluC.ÖzkılıçY, O.MadenciE.SafonovA. (2022). Compressive behavior of pultruded GFRP boxes with concentric openings strengthened by different composite wrappings. Polymers14, 4095. 10.3390/polym14194095

  • 7

    AlatshanF.AltomateA.HamadS. (2022). Concrete filled plastic stub columns strength under axial compression. Open J. Civ. Eng.12, 87100. 10.4236/ojce.2022.121007

  • 8

    BandyopadhyayA.SamantaA. K.MichelA. K.PaulK. J. (2019). Assessment of axial capacity of RC stub column confined with unplasticized polyvinyl chloride pipe. J. Inst. Eng. India. Ser. A100 (4), 535546. 10.1007/s40030-019-00397-5

  • 9

    ChangY.ChenW.XiaoQ.RongE.PengL. (2021). Theoretical and experimental study on axial compression concrete-filled tubes with different confinements. J. Constr. Steel Res.185, 106862. 10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106862

  • 10

    FakharifarM.ChenG. (2016). Compressive behavior of FRP-confined concrete-filled PVC tubular columns. Compos. Struct.141, 91109. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.004

  • 11

    FakharifarM.ChenG. (2017). FRP confined concrete filled PVC tubes: A new design concept for ductile columns construction in seismic regions. Constr. Build. Mater.130, 287302. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.056

  • 12

    FangF.YuF.GuanY.WangZ.FengC.LiD. (2020). A model for predicting the stress–strain relation of PVC-CFRP confined concrete stub columns under axial compression. structures26, 259270. 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.04.023

  • 13

    FengY.DitaoN. (2013). Experimental study on PVC-CFRP confined reinforced concrete short column under axial compression. J. Build. Struct.34 (6), 129137.

  • 14

    GaoC.HuangL.YanL.JinR.KasalB. (2019). Strength and ductility improvement of recycled aggregate concrete by polyester FRP-PVC tube confinement. Compos. Part B Eng.162, 668676. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.10.102

  • 15

    GemiL.AlsdudiM.AksoyluC.YazmanS.ÖzkılıçY, O.ArslanM. H. (2022b). Optimum amount of CFRP for strengthening shear deficient reinforced concrete beams. steel Compos. Struct.43 (6), 735757. 10.12989/scs.2022.43.6.735

  • 16

    GemiL.MadenciE.ÖzkılıçY, O.YazmanS.SafonovA. (2022). Effect of fiber wrapping on bending behavior of reinforced concrete filled pultruded GFRP composite hybrid beams. Polymers14, 3740. 10.3390/polym14183740

  • 17

    GuoY. C.HuangP. Y.YangY.LiL. J. (2008). Experimental studies on axially loaded concrete columns confined by different materials. Adv. Concr. Struct.400, 513. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.400-402.513

  • 18

    GuptaP. K. (2013). Confinement of concrete columns with unplasticized Poly-Vinyl Chloride tubes. Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng.5 (19), 19. 10.1186/2008-6695-5-19

  • 19

    GuptaP. K.VermaV. K. (2014). Study of concrete filled unplasticized polyvinyl chloride tubes in marine environment. Proc. institutions Mech. Eng. Part M J. Eng. Marit. Environ.230. 10.1177/1475090214560448

  • 20

    HadiM. N. S. (2009). Behaviour of eccentric loading of FRP confined fibre steel reinforced concrete columns. Constr. Build. Mat.23, 11021108. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.05.024

  • 21

    HanL. H.LiW.BjorhovdeR. (2014). Developments and advanced applications of concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) structures: Members. J. Constr. Steel Res.100, 211228. 10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.04.016

  • 22

    HanyN. F.HantoucheE. G.HarajliM. H. (2016). Axial stress-strain model of CFRP confined concrete under monotonic and cyclic loading. J. Compos. Constr.19, 104015004. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000557

  • 23

    HarajliM. H. (2006). Axial stress-strain relationship for FRP confined circular and rectangular concrete columns. Cem. Concr. Compos.28, 938948. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.07.005

  • 24

    HuangY.LiW.LuY.LiangH.YanY. (2022). Behaviour of CFST slender columns strengthened with steel tube and sandwiched concrete jackets under axial loading. J. Build. Eng.45, 103613. 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103613

  • 25

    IsleemH. F.WangD.WangZ. (2018b). Modeling the axial compressive stress-strain behavior of CFRP-confined rectangular RC columns under monotonic and cyclic loading. Compos. Struct.185, 229240. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.023

  • 26

    IsleemH. F.WangZ.WangD.SmithS. T. (2018a). Monotonic and cyclic axial compressive behavior of CFRP-confined rectangular RC columns. J. Compos. Constr.22 (4), 04018023. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000860

  • 27

    IsleemH. F.JagadeshP.AhmadJ.QaidiS.AlthoeyF.Mohammed NajmH. (2022). Finite element and analytical modelling of PVC-confined concrete columns under axial compression. Front. Mat.9, 1011675. 10.3389/fmats.2022.1011675

  • 28

    JackubowiczI.YaramadiN.GevertT. (1999). Effects of accelerated and natural ageing on plasticized polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Polym. Degrad. Stab.66 (3), 415421. 10.1016/s0141-3910(99)00094-4

  • 29

    JiangS. F.MaS. L.WuZ. Q. (2014). Experimental study and theoretical analysis on slender concrete-filled CFRP–PVC tubular columns. Constr. Build. Mater.53, 475487. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.089

  • 30

    JinL.ChenH.WangZ.DuX. (2020). Size effect on axial compressive failure of CFRP wrapped square concrete columns, tests and simulations. Compos. Struct.254, 112843. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112843

  • 31

    KazmiS. M. S.MunirM. J.WuY. F. (2021). Application of waste tire rubber and recycled aggregates in concrete products: A new compression casting approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.167, 105353. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105353

  • 32

    MammenA. M.AntonyM. (2017). “Experimental study on the axial compression of GRP concrete PVC tube composite columns,” in IOP conference series: Earth and Environmental science, Makassar, Indonesia, October 25–26, 2017, 042013. IOP Publishing.

  • 33

    MasiaM. J.GaleT. N.ShriveN. G. (2004). Size effects in axially loaded square-section concrete prisms strengthened using carbon fibre reinforced polymer wrapping. Can. J. Civ. Eng.31 (1), 113. 10.1139/l03-064

  • 34

    MhannaH. H.HawilehR. A.AbdallaJ. A. (2020). Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete T-beams using CFRP laminates anchored with bent CFRP splay anchors. Procedia Struct. Integr.28, 811819. 10.1016/j.prostr.2020.10.095

  • 35

    MicelliF.MazzottaR.LeoneM.AielloM. A. (2015). Review study on the durability of FRP-Confined concrete. J. Compos. Constr.19 (3), 04014056. 10.1061/(asce)cc.1943-5614.0000520

  • 36

    NowackR.OttoO. I.BraunE. W. (1995). Jahre Erfahrungen mit Rohrleitungen aus weichmacherfreiem Poly Vinyl Chrloride (PVC-U). Alphacan omiplast: KRV Nachrichte, 195.

  • 37

    OyawaW. O.GathimbaN. K.ManguriuG. N. (2016). Structural response of composite concrete filled plastic tubes in compression. Steel compos. Struct.21 (3), 589604. 10.12989/scs.2016.21.3.589

  • 38

    OzbakkalogluT.VincentT. (2014). Axial compressive behavior of circular high-strength concrete-filled FRP tubes. J. Compos. Constr.18 (2), 04013037. 10.1061/(asce)cc.1943-5614.0000410

  • 39

    OzkilicY. O.AksoyluC.ArslanM. H. (2021c). Experimental and numerical investigations of steel fiber reinforced concrete dapped end purlins. J. Build. Eng.36, 102119. 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102119

  • 40

    OzkilicY. O.AksoyluC.ArslanM. H. (2021a). Numerical evaluation of effects of shear span, stirrup spacing and angle of stirrup on reinforced concrete beam behaviour. Struct. Eng. Mech.79 (3), 309326. 10.12989/sem.2021.79.3.309

  • 41

    OzkilicY. O.AksoyluC.YazmanS.GemiL.ArslanM. H. (2022). Behavior of CFRP-strengthened RC beams with circular web openings in shear zones: Numerical study. Structures41, 13691389. 10.1016/j.istruc.2022.05.061

  • 42

    OzkilicY. O.YazmanS.AksoyluC.ArslanM. H.GemiL. (2021b). Numerical investigation of the parameters influencing the behavior of dapped end prefabricated concrete purlins with and without CFRP strengthening. Constr. Build. Mater.275, 122173. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.122173

  • 43

    PapanikolaouV. K.KapposA. J. (2007). Confinement-sensitive plasticity constitutive model for concrete in triaxial compression. Int. J. Solids Struct.44, 70217048. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.03.022

  • 44

    PingY. L.PengF. (2006). Applications and development of fiber-reinforced polymer in engineering structures. China Civ. Eng. J.39, 2536. 10.3390/fib10030027

  • 45

    RazaA.KhanQ. U. Z.AhmadA. (2019). Numerical investigation of load-carrying capacity of GFRP reinforced rectangular concrete members using CDP model in ABAQUS. Adv. Civ. Eng.2019, 17453411745421. 10.1155/2019/1745341

  • 46

    RoccaS. (2007). “Experimental and analytical evaluation of FRP-confined large-size reinforced concrete columns,” (United States: Univ. of Missouri-Rolla). Ph.D. thesis.

  • 47

    TengJ. G.HuangY. L.LamL.YeL. P. (2007). Theoretical model for fiber reinforced polymer-confined concrete. J. Compos. Constr.11 (2), 201210. 10.1061/(asce)1090-0268(2007)11:2(201)

  • 48

    ToutanjiH.SennahM. (2002). Stress-strain behavior of concrete columns confined with hybrid composite materials. Mat. Struct.35 (6), 338. 10.1617/13653

  • 49

    VasumathiA. M.Raj KumarK.Ganesh PrabhuG. (2014). Compressive behaviour of RC column with fibre reinforced concrete confined by CFRP strips. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.2014, 601915. 10.1155/2014/601915

  • 50

    VedernikovA.GemiL.MadenciE.ÖzkılıçY, O.YazmanS.GusevS.et al (2022). Effects of high pulling speeds on mechanical properties and morphology of pultruded GFRP composite flat laminates. Compos. Struct.301, 116216. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116216

  • 51

    WangJ.YangQ. (2010). Experimental study on mechanical properties of concrete confined with plastic pipe. ACI Mater. Journals107, 132. 10.14359/51663576

  • 52

    WangL. M.WuY. F. (2008). Effect of corner radius on the performance of CFRP-confined square concrete columns: Test. Eng. Struct.30 (2), 493505. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.04.016

  • 53

    WangZ.WangD.SmithS. T.LuD. (2012c). Experimental testing and analytical modeling of CFRP confined large circular RC columns subjected to cyclic axial compression. Eng. Struct.40, 6474. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.01.004

  • 54

    WangZ. Y.WangD. Y.SmithS. T.LuD. G. (2012a). CFRP confined square RC columns. I: Experimental investigation. J. Compos. Constr.16 (2), 150160. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000245

  • 55

    WangZ. Y.WangD. Y.SmithS. T.LuD. G. (2012b). CFRP-Confined square RC columns. I: Experimental investigation. J. Compos. Constr.16, 150160. 10.1061/(asce)cc.1943-5614.0000245

  • 56

    WoldemariamA. M.OyawaW.NyomboiT. (2019). Behavior of concrete-filled single and double-skin uPVC tubular columns under axial compression loads. open Constr. Build. J.13, 164177. 10.2174/1874836801913010164

  • 57

    WoldemariamA. M.OyawaW. O.NyomboiT. (2019). Structural performance of uPVC confined concrete equivalent cylinders under axial compression loads. Buildings9 (4), 82. 10.3390/buildings9040082

  • 58

    XiaoY. (2004). Applications of FRP composites in concrete columns. Adv. Struct. Eng.7 (4), 335343. 10.1260/1369433041653552

  • 59

    XuY.TangH.ChenJ.JiaY.LiuR. (2021). Numerical analysis of CFRP-confined concrete filled stainless steel tubular stub columns under axial compression. J. Build. Eng.37, 102130. 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102130

  • 60

    YuF. (2007). “Experimental Study and theoretical analysis on mechanical behavior of PVC–FRP confined concrete column,” (Xi’an: University of Architecture and Technology). Doctoral thesis.

  • 61

    YuF.ZhangN.NiuD.KongZ.ZhuD.WangS.et al (2019). Strain analysis of PVC-CFRP confined concrete column with ring beam joint under axial compression. Compos. Struct.224, 111012. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111012

  • 62

    ZhangH.HadiM. N. S. (2020). Geogrid-confined pervious geopolymer concrete piles with FRP-PVC confined concrete core: Analytical models. Structures23, 731738. 10.1016/j.istruc.2019.11.005

Summary

Keywords

ABAQUS, concrete filled PVC tubes, load carrying capacity, finite element model, damage plasticity model

Citation

Isleem HF, Jagadesh P, Qaidi S, Althoey F, Rahmawati C, Najm HM and Sabri MMS (2022) Finite element and theoretical investigations on PVC–CFRP confined concrete columns under axial compression. Front. Mater. 9:1055397. doi: 10.3389/fmats.2022.1055397

Received

27 September 2022

Accepted

02 November 2022

Published

15 December 2022

Volume

9 - 2022

Edited by

Haitao Wang, Hohai University, China

Reviewed by

Lokman Gemi, Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey

Fethi Abbassi, American University of the Middle East, Kuwait

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Haytham F. Isleem,

This article was submitted to Structural Materials, a section of the journal Frontiers in Materials

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics