Structures 26 (2020) 626–638

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Finite element modelling and theoretical predictions of FRP-reinforced T

concrete columns confined with various FRP-tubes
⁎
Ali Razaa, , Anees ur Rehmanb, Bilal Masoodc, Iqrar Hussaind
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Technology, Multan 66000, Pakistan
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila 47080, Pakistan
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Wah Engineering College, University of Wah, Wah Cantt, 47050, Pakistan
d
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila 47080, Pakistan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The present research work has endeavored to investigate the structural behavior of fiber reinforced polymer
FRP-tube (FRP) reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP-tubes under axial concentric and eccentric loadings. A
GFRP finite element analysis (FEA) model of FRP-tube confined concrete columns having longitudinal reinforcements
Capacity equation of either carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and/or glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars, was si-
Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
mulated using a finite element (FE) package ABAQUS 6.14 which was then, calibrated for different material and
Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model
Parametric study
geometric models of concrete, FRP-tube and FRP longitudinal reinforcement using the experimental results from
the literature. The comparative study shows that the proposed FEA model presented a close agreement with the
experimental measurements. A detailed parametric study was performed using the FEA model to examine the
effects of various parameters of FRP composite columns on the axial load capacity and axial deflection.
Moreover, a large database of axial strengths of 685 FRP-confined concrete compression members was developed
from the previous researches to propose an empirical model that predicts the ultimate axial strength of FRP
reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP-tubes accurately. The comparison of predictions of the proposed
empirical model with the FEA predictions from the parametric study portrayed a close agreement among them.
Thus, the proposed models are accurate enough to predict the behavior of FRP reinforced concrete columns
confined with FRP-tubes.

1. Introduction
Recently, the use of Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) in construc-
tion works is increasing because of its superiority over conventional
steel concerning different properties such as low maintenance cost, high
corrosion resistance, durability, higher resistance to fire and aesthetic
appearance. Although the transverse steel confinement effectively en-
hances the concrete strength, the outward local buckling of the column
will decrease the effectiveness of lateral steel confinement resulting in
the degradation of axial load carrying capacity and ductility of columns
[1,2]. Thus, the additional confinement provided by the fiber-re-
inforced polymer (FRP) will be useful for the prevention of outward
local buckling [3]. The failure mode of the concrete-filled stainless
steel-tube (CFSST) columns is due to the outwards local buckling
causing the degradation in ductility and strength. Therefore, to avoid
this local buckling of CFSST columns for further loads, the strength-
ening needs to be improved by applying FRP laminates [4]. The
ductility and axial strength of the concrete core will be significantly
improved due to the confinement effect of FRP wraps.
Most of the previous works investigate the experimental results of
FRP confined concrete members [5–8]. These works studied the FRP
confinement mechanism by performing tests and did not focus on the
theoretical and finite element predictions. The main conclusions of
these works included the enhancement in the axial strength and duc-
tility of the concrete members due to the confinement effect of FRPs.
Based on the experimental investigations, analytical models for the
axial strength and strain of confined concrete columns were proposed
[9–11] which played an important role in predicting the approximate
analysis results, but they do not fully explore the fundamental behavior
and interaction mechanisms between confinement material and the
concrete. The single layer of FRPs enhances the axial strength by
60.82% and the double layer of FRPs enhances the axial strength by
103.2% [11]. A few researchers used the artificial neural networks to
predict the axial strength of FRP confined concrete [12–15]. They

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: aliraza@piet.edu.pk (A. Raza), bilal.masood@wecuw.edu.pk (B. Masood).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.04.033
Received 27 March 2020; Received in revised form 17 April 2020; Accepted 23 April 2020
Available online 11 May 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Raza, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 626–638

Table 1
Test matrix for presented FEA.
Specimen label Diameter of column Height of column Internal long. reinforcement Lateral confinement Thickness of Tube (mm) Loading eccentricity (mm)
(mm) (mm)

CTPC-0 203 812 – CFRP Tube 0.5 0

CTPC-25 25
CTPC-50 50
GTPC-0 203 812 – GFRP Tube 1.5 0
GTPC-25 25
GTPC-50 50
CTCR-0 203 812 CFRP CFRP Tube 0.5 0
CTCR-25 25
CTCR-50 50
GTGR-0 203 812 GFRP GFRP Tube 1.5 0
GTGR-25 25
GTGR-50 50

concluded that the artificial neural networks are the most efficient tools of the present study is to propose the FEA as well as empirical models to
that can capture the behavior of FRP confinement up to 99% accuracy. predict the complex structural behavior of FRP reinforced concrete
To overwhelm the inadequacy of these proposed models for confined columns confined with FRP-tubes. To secure this objective, a FEA model
concrete, one can move towards the three-dimensional finite element of FRP reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP-tubes was si-
analysis (FEA) with all the deficiencies of analytical models explicitly mulated using ABAQUS 6.14. Its accuracy was validated against the
represented. In comparison with the experiments, FEA simulations can experiments of FRP reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP
save the cost and time by developing the numerical models which tubes from Hadi et al. [6] by comparing the FEA predictions with the
predict the complex damage behavior accurately [16]. To speed up the axial load-deflection behavior and cracking patterns. Thereafter, the
simulations and simplify the FEA model it is essential to consider some proposed numerical model was utilized for the extensive parametric
assumptions but, it is also important to follow the conditions to be study of FRP reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP tubes to
applied in experiments. There should be a balance in model complexity, investigate the sensitivity of different critical parameters, material
element types and mesh sizes to enhance the precision of the results and properties and geometric configurations on the structural behavior of
to reduce the time of calculation work. Thus, the numerical methods specimens. Moreover, a large database was developed for the confined
with strong background knowledge of FEA are more efficient and concrete strength from the previous researches to propose an empirical
convenient tools to be used for engineering research and various con- model that accurately predicts the axial capacity of FRP reinforced
crete structural elements [17]. concrete columns confined with FRP tubes. This research is of utmost
A large number of studies can be found in the literature that nu- importance for the structural engineers while designing such com-
merically predict the structural behavior of concrete-filled steel tube pression members.
columns (CFST) [18–21]. These studies concluded that the axial
structural performance of FRP confined concrete compression members
2. Finite element models
can be reliably predicted by the FE models. These studies accurately
modeled the interaction mechanism between the FRP confinement and
2.1. Element types and boundary conditions
concrete for achieving the accurate simulations. However, none of the
researchers developed the FEA model for analyzing the structural be-
The accuracy of FEM depends on the experimental boundary con-
havior of FRP confined concrete composite columns internally re-
ditions and accurate materials simulations. The FEA models of all the
inforced with various types of FRP bars. A fiber element model based on
FRP-RC columns were simulated whose bottom was restrained for all
the experimental study for the structural performance of CFSST col-
degrees of freedom (DOF) and the top end was kept unrestrained with
umns was proposed which predicted the numerical and experimental
the applied uniformly distributed axial load on the upper steel plate
ultimate loads accurately. Moreover, it was concluded that Eurocode 4
using displacement control technique. Twelve full-scale specimens of
and ACI 318 underestimate the axial capacity of CFSST columns sig-
FRP reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP tubes were mod-
nificantly [22]. A non-linear FEA model of CFSST columns was pro-
eled in ABAQUS under axial compressive loading. The geometrical
posed using ABAQUS [23]. The FEA prediction in terms of axial load-
properties of the simulated columns are shown in Table 1. During the
axial deflection curves and ultimate axial capacity were in a close
FEA simulation, the nonlinear geometric parameter was also included
agreement with the experimental results. Furthermore, by using nu-
with the specified dissipation energy fraction of 0.0002 to deal with
merical simulations, the structural performance of carbon steel tube
relatively larger displacements. The confined concrete material and the
concrete columns was compared with that of CFSST columns. FEA
steel plates were modeled as deformable three-dimensional stress, 8-
studies on the performance of CFSST columns under concentric loading
nodded solid brick elements with the hourglass control and reduced
were performed by [24]. The finite element models given by these re-
integration (C3D8R). The FRP tubes were simulated using the de-
searchers accurately predicted the structural performance of CFSST
formable 4-nodded doubly curved shell elements along with the hour-
columns by taking in to account the influence of strain hardening and
glass control and the reduced integration (S4R) having six DOF at each
confinement mechanisms of steel tube.
node is capable of predicting the buckling behavior accurately [4]. The
The previous research lacks the theoretical and finite element pre-
simulations of FRP bars were performed using 3-D truss elements with 2
dictions for the axial strength of FRP reinforced concrete columns
nodes having reduced integration. The interaction between the outer
confined with FRP tubes. Furthermore, the previous theoretical models
concrete surface and the inner FRP tube surface was taken as a hard
were proposed based on the small databases that were too much noisy
contact in the normal direction to avoid the penetration of surfaces into
and the most of them were developed for the steel-confined concrete. In
each other and a frictional contact was specified in the tangential di-
the present study, a large database was used for the prediction of the
rection of the member using a frictional coefficient of 0.25 as proposed
axial strength of FRP reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP
by [24]. Similarly, the connection between the concrete surfaces and
tubes to overcome the issue of the previous models. The main objective
the rigid steel load plates surfaces was simulated using the hard contact

627
A. Raza, et al.
Fig. 1. Finite element simulations (a) geometry, (b) FRP tube to concrete surface friction interaction, (c) embedded FRP bars to concrete (d) meshed elements of
20 mm size (e) applied loading and boundary conditions.
interaction and the frictional contact interaction with a friction coeffi-
cient of 0.35 in the normal direction and the tangential direction, re-
spectively [25]. The surface of the concrete core material was taken as
master and the surface of steel plates was assigned as the slave surface.
The node region of the FRP tube was tied with the surface of steel rigid
plates by considering them as a master surface. Fig. 1 shows the geo-
metry, FRP tube to concrete surface friction interaction, applied loading
and meshed elements of the FRP-tube columns.
2.2. Simulations of materials
2.2.1. Concrete material
There are three models available in ABAQUS, i.e. damaged plasti-
city model, brittle crack model and smeared crack model, for modeling
the nonlinearity of concrete material but Concrete Damaged Plastic
(CDP) model is usually preferred [26] because it deals broadly with the
three-dimensional nonlinear inelastic behavior of concrete including
the confinement and damage mechanism, compressive, tensile and
plastic properties in the inelastic range. In the smeared crack model,
cracking is the most important and the compression yielding surface
controls the plastic straining whereas in the brittle crack model the
compressive failure is not important. By using the stress-strain curve of
unconfined concrete, we cannot simulate the behavior of FRP-confined
concrete accurately [27,28]. Therefore, the concrete was simulated as a
confined concrete using the axial stress and strain models of FRP-con-
fined concrete proposed by Mander et al. [29] after making some
modifications in the CDP model. The equivalent stress-strain curve of
confined concrete as represented in Fig. 2, was taken from Hu et al. [30]
where f cc' is the axial compressive stress of confined concrete, f c' is the
axial compressive stress of unconfined concrete, εc is the compressive
strain at f c' and εcc is the axial compressive strain at f cc' . Moreover, r and
Fig. 2. Axial stress-strain behavior of unconfined and confined concrete.
628
Structures 26 (2020) 626–638
k3 are the factors which were calculated using the empirical equation
available in [24,30].
The linear elastic part of the stress-strain curve can be considered up
to 50% of the ultimate strength of confined concrete [30,31] and can be
characterized by using two parameters; one is elastic modulus (Ecc) and
the second is Poisson’s ratio. For confined concrete core material, the
Poisson’s ratio was considered as 0.2 and the elastic modulus (Ecc) was
determined using the equation provided by ACI 318 code as re-
presented by Eq. (1).
Ecc = 4700 f cc' (1)
The nonlinear plastic and damage behavior of confined concrete
core was simulated using a modified CDP model available in the
ABAQUS standard. The modified CDP model of concrete is further
subdivided into three parts: plastic, tensile and compressive behavior.
For the description of the plastic behavior of confined concrete, flow
rule, yield surface functions and softening/hardening laws were used.
This behavior can be simulated in the CDP model using the parameters
'
including the ratio of compressive strengths ( f bo / f co' ), the ratio of biaxial
to triaxial compressive strengths (Kc), potential eccentricity (ε ), visc-
osity parameter and dilation angle (ψ ) of concrete. The values of these
parameters were obtained after the calibration. For simulating the
compressive behavior, the inelastic strain (ε in ) was further increased up
to the combination of both elastic (ε el ) and plastic strains (ε pl ) to define
the compression failure at larger strain and peak stress. The compres-
sive behavior consists of compression damage and compression hard-
ening. The total strain of the concrete can be expressed as:
ε = ε el + ε pl (2)
The damage of concrete in ABAQUS is modeled using two variables
known as the uniaxial compression damage parameter (dc ) and tension
damage parameter (dt ). From Fig. 3, the relationship for the compres-
sive and tensile stresses of plain concrete can be presented in the form
of Eq. (3) and Eq. (4), respectively.
σc = (1 − dc ) Eo (εc − εcpl ) (3)
σt = (1 − dt ) Eo (εt − εtpl ) (4)
Where, Eo is the Young’s modulus of concrete defined by ACI 318-95
[32], εc and εt are the strains of concrete in compression and tension,
respectively, εcpl and εtpl are the plastic portions of the strain of concrete
in compression and tension, respectively. The parameters dc and dt can
be expressed by Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively, as recommended by
Wang and Chen [33].
1 in
dc = (e−εc, norm/ mc − 1)
e−1/ mc − 1 (5)
1 ck
dt = (e−εt, norm/ mt − 1)
e−1/ mt − 1 (6)
A. Raza, et al.
Fig. 3. Stress-strain behavior of HFRC (a) in compression (b) in tension.
where, mc and mt are the parameters that control the speed of com-
pression and tension damage evolution having the values of 0.1 and
0.05 for the concrete [34], εcin, norm and εtck , norm are the normalized com-
pressive and tensile inelastic strains of plain concrete which can be
expressed as: εcin/ εcu
in
and εtck / εtuck , respectively. Here, εcuin
and εtuck are the
strains corresponding to the normalized compressive and tensile in-
elastic strain of concrete having the values of 0.033 and 0.0033, re-
spectively [34].
2.2.2. FRP bars
The geometry of FRP bars material was modeled as three-dimen-
sional 2-node truss elements having six DOF at each node with reduced
integration (T3D2R). FRP is a brittle material that shows a sudden
failure after yielding strength. Thus, the behavior of circular CFRP and
GFRP bars was simulated using linear elastic behavior [26,35] as shown
in Fig. 4. The elastic part of the stress-strain behavior of FRP bars
available in ABAQUS was defined by using a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 and
an elastic modulus of 89.4GPa and 56GPa for CFRP and GFRP bars,
respectively. The tensile strengths of CFRP and GFRP bars were taken as
1157 MPa and 1395 MPa, respectively [6].
2.2.3. FRP tubes
The geometry of CFRP and GFRP-tubes was simulated using shell
elements (S4R). To capture the behavior of FRP tubes, an accurate
definition of laminate strength, elastic and damage evolution is neces-
sary [4]. The damage of fiber composites is highly dependent on the
misalignment of the fibers and the shear behavior of resin. Some of the
specifications of FRP tubes were presented in Table 2. The elastic be-
havior of FRP tubes was simulated using the material type as “LAMINA”
in which the elastic modulus in hoop direction E1 was taken from the
manufacturer with a value of 54 GPa and 18 GPa for CFRP and GFRP-
tube, respectively [6] and small percentages of elastic behavior in the
direction of fiber were assigned to E2, G12, G13 and G23 [4,27]. The
Fig. 4. Linear elastic behavior of (a) CFRP bars (b) GFRP bars.
629
Structures 26 (2020) 626–638
value of Poisson’s ratio was taken as 0.3. The failure stress in sub-option
of elastic behavior was defined by using tensile stress of 1188 MPa and
810 MPa for CFRP and GFRP-tube, respectively as provided by the
manufacturer [6] in fiber direction while small percentage values of
tensile stress in fibers’ direction were used for compressive stresses in
fiber and transverse directions for matching the FEA predictions closely
with the experimental outputs as shown in Table 3.
Hashin damage criterion [36,37] was used in the present research to
model all the modes of failure of FRP tube consisting of strength and
damage behavior as this model accurately predicts the fiber and matrix
tensile and compressive damage initiation [16]. The strength properties
of FRP tube were defined by using the manufacturers’ provided tensile
strength in fibers’ direction and some assumed as small values of that
strength in the perpendicular direction as reported in [27] to match the
FEA predictions with the experiments. After the initiation of damage
criterion, degradation of the stiffness coefficients will occur upon the
application of further loading. The damage evolution parameters were
taken according to Shi et al. [16]. Different parameters used to describe
the Hashin damage model for FRP tubes are presented in Table 4.
2.3. Initial geometric imperfections
These are the outward deflections occurring in the thin-walled
structural elements whose magnitude is a complex function of geo-
metric and material characteristics and manufacturing and rolling
process of the cross-sections. The accurate definition of initial im-
perfections with proper amplitude and pattern is necessary for a FEA
model to capture the behavior of thin-walled structural elements [4].
The initial imperfection along the height of the column was defined by
providing the first positive local buckling mode during the application
of axial compressive loading which gives a half-sine wave shape. The
FEA model was linked with the required buckling mode shape deflec-
tion results after an investigation of elastic buckling. A subroutine
A. Raza, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 626–638

Table 2
Characteristics of FRP tubes.
Sr. No. Tube materials Elastic Modulus in the Tensile strength in the circumferential Elastic Modulus in the Tensile strength in the
circumferential direction (GPa) direction (MPa) longitudinal direction (GPa) longitudinal direction (MPa)

1 GFRP 18 810 56 92.2

2 CFRP 54 1188 89.4 142.6

Table 3
Elastic behavior of CFRP and GFRP-tube.
Property CFRP tube
Elastic modulus in fiber’ direction, E1 (GPa) 54
Elastic modulus in the transverse direction, E2 (GPa) 2.227
Longitudinal-transverse Poisson’s ratio, Nu12 0.3
Shear moduli, G12, G13, G23 (MPa) 1127
naming as “IMPERFECTION” available in ABAQUS software was used
to define the initial geometric imperfection with a maximum value of t/
100 giving a good approach to experimental results, in which ‘t’ is the
combined thickness of the confining material. It is important to note
that some preliminary analyses were performed in the FEA modeling to
find out the proper values of some important parameters of the FEA
model.
2.4. Calibration of model
One FRP reinforced concrete column confined with FRP tubes
column (CTCR-0) from [6] was taken as a control specimen for cali-
bration and validation purposes. The FEA model of CTCR-0 was cali-
brated for different boundary conditions, geometric properties, and
material properties to obtain the accurate results as compared with that
of experiments of the axial capacity, load-deflection behavior, and
failure patterns. Element sizes of 15 mm, 17 mm, 19 mm, 20 mm,
21 mm and 23 mm were studied to determine the mesh size giving the
best approximation to the experimental curve of load-deflection of FRP
tube columns. A close agreement between the FEA and the experi-
mental predictions of load-deflection behavior was obtained using the
elements of 20 mm size which was selected for the further analysis of
the FRP tube columns and their parametric study. The effect of different
mesh sizes is represented in Fig. 5(a).
The sensitivity of the load-deflection performance of the control
specimen due to the viscosity parameter of concrete was shown in
Fig. 5(b). For the better convergence of FEA results, a smaller value
should be used for the viscosity parameter. The time increment size
influences this parameter and its value should always be approximate to
15% of the time increment size for achieving the good results as com-
pared with experimental results [38]. The selected value of this para-
meter was 0.006 because of the good results at this value in comparison
with the experimental load-deflection response.
The definition of the plastic region of concrete behavior requires the
description of flow rule, hardening and softening laws and shape
function of yielding surface. The dilation angle of concrete, which is a
GFRP tube material parameter, belongs to the non-associated flow rule. The CDP
model for the accurate simulations of the plastic behavior of concrete
18 uses the flow potential function which is defined by Drucker-Prager
0.818
hyperbolic function as represented by Eq. (7).
0.3
414 −2 −
G (σ ) = (εσt0 tanψ)2 + q − p tanψ (7)
where, ψ is the dilation angle of concrete, σt0 is the uniaxial tensile
− −
stress, q and p are the Mises equivalent stress and hydrostatic stress,
respectively, ε is the eccentricity of the flow potential function and σt0 is
the uniaxial failure tensile stress. The Drucker-Prager potential function
is represented by Eq. (8).
G= 2J2 + αp I1 (8)
where, αp is a parameter of concrete called a dilatancy parameter. Eqs.
(7) and (8) can be rewritten as:
−2 1
G (σ ) = (εσt0 tanψ)2 + q − I1 tanψ
3 (9)
Wu et al. [39] suggested that the value of αp should be between 0.2
and 0.3. Using this range of αp , the value of ψ should be in between 31°
and 42°. Therefore, this parameter of the plastic behavior of concrete
was calibrated using the load–deflection curve of control specimen
(CTCR-0) for the values of 30°, 33°, 36°, 39°, 42° and 45° to achieve the
accurate predictions. The best approximation was achieved using 33°
for ψ which was selected for the control model as shown in Fig. 5(c). It
was examined that the effect of ψ was significant in the post-buckling
behavior of concrete but was negligible in the elastic behavior.
The sensitivity due to eccentricity (ε), shape factor (Kc) and stress
ratio (σb0/ σc 0) was also investigated for the convergence of the control
FEA model. After the sensitivity analysis, it was investigated that the
variation of these parameters has no significant effect on the axial load-
deflection response of the control model. Therefore, the default values
for these parameters (i.e. 0.1, 0.67 and 1.16, respectively) were used in
the current research.
The element library of ABAQUS consists of various types of 3D
stress, truss and shell elements. The 3D concrete material was cali-
brated for triangular elements (C3D15H and C3D6H), hexahedral ele-
ments (C3D20R and C3D8R) and tetrahedral elements (C3D10H and
C3D4H). A close relation between FEA predictions and that of experi-
ments was obtained using 8-noded brick elements (C3D8R) of concrete
which is also reported by the literature [26]. The calibration for

Table 4
Strength and damage variables of Hashin model.
Property Parameter CFRP tube GFRP tube

Strength properties Tensile strength in normal dir. of fiber (MPa) 1188 810
Compressive strength in normal dir. of fiber (MPa) 3.96 2.70
Tensile strength in transverse dir. of fiber (MPa) 3.96 2.70
Compressive strength in transverse dir. of fiber (MPa) 3.96 2.70
Shear strength in normal dir. of fiber (MPa) 3.96 2.70
Shear strength in transverse dir. of fiber (MPa) 3.96 2.70

Damage properties Fracture tensile energy in fibers’ dir. (mJ/mm2) 92 92

Fracture tensile energy in transverse dir. (mJ/mm2) 1.1 1.1
Fracture compressive energy in fibers’ dir. (mJ/mm2) 1.1 1.1
Fracture compressive energy in transverse dir. (mJ/mm2) 0.2 0.2

630
A. Raza, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 626–638

Fig. 5. Sensitivity of different parameters on load-deflection performance of control model (a) mesh size (b) viscosity parameter (c) dilation angle (d) concrete
elements (e) longitudinal reinforcement elements (f) FRP tube elements.

elements types of FRP-tube was conducted using the quadrilateral and

triangular shell elements. The quadrilateral elements consist of linear
and quadratic conventional shell elements (doubly curved) with re-
duced integration for large strains (S4R and S8R) and the triangular
elements consist of linear and quadratic shell elements (S3R and
STRI65) which were used in the current research for the convergence
purpose of control model as represented in Fig. 5(d, e, f). A standard 4-
noded shell element (doubly curved) with hourglass control and re-
duced integration presented the close agreement among experimental
and FEA predicted results of the load-deflection behavior of control
specimen. Moreover, the 3-D two-node truss elements of FRP bars gave
a better performance for the load-deflection response of FRP tube col-
umns.
Fig. 6. Experiments and FEA results of the load-deflection response of plain
concrete CFRP-tube confined concrete columns.

631
A. Raza, et al.
3. Discussions of numerical results
3.1. Load-deflection behavior
The structural response of plain concrete columns confined with
CFRP-tubes in terms of axial load-deflection curves was represented in
Fig. 6. The parameters of the plastic behavior of concrete in the mod-
ified CDP model were taken as same for all the specimens after cali-
bration. It can be observed from Fig. 6 that the FEA model captured the
experimental results accurately in the elastic as well as inelastic beha-
vior of columns. The maximum percentage difference between the ex-
perimental and numerical results of the ultimate axial capacity was
3.08% and that of axial deflection at ultimate loads was 11.83%. It was
also noticed that the experimental results were mostly stiffer that the
predictions of the FEA model in the elastic region but, in the inelastic
region, there was a close agreement between them. The FE model of
specimen CTPC-0 presented the discrepancies of 3.20% and 13.15% for
ultimate capacity and corresponding deflection, respectively from the
experimental measurements. The FE model of specimen CTPC-25 pre-
sented the discrepancies of 6.11% and 16.86% for ultimate loading
capacity and corresponding axial deflection, respectively from the ex-
perimental results. Similarly, the FE model of specimen CTPC-50 pre-
sented the discrepancies of 4.71% and 8.57% for axial capacity and
axial deflection, respectively. This shows that the proposed FEM cap-
tured the structural behavior of a specimen with 50 mm eccentricity
with higher accuracy. Furthermore, the average percentage differences
of FEA and experimental measurements for axial loading capacities and
corresponding deflections of plain concrete columns confined with
CFRP-tubes were 4.67% and 12.86%, respectively.
The experimental versus FE results of the axial load-deflection
performance of plain concrete GFRP-tube confined concrete columns
were presented in Fig. 7. It was observed that the FEA model of
ABAQUS presented higher accuracy for predicting the axial behavior of
plain concrete GFRP-tube confined columns. The FE model of the spe-
cimen GTPC-0 presented the discrepancies of 2.73% and 10.11% for
ultimate capacity and corresponding deflection, respectively from the
experimental measurements. The FE model of column specimen GTPC-
25 presented the discrepancies of 0.23% and 9.27% for ultimate loading
capacity and corresponding axial deflection, respectively from the ex-
perimental results. Similarly, the FE model of specimen GTPC-50 pre-
sented the discrepancies of 1.03% and 9.34% for axial capacity and
axial deflection, respectively. The proposed FEA model predicted the
axial loading behavior of specimen with 25 mm eccentricity and axial
deflection behavior of specimen with 50 mm eccentricity with higher
accuracy. The average percentage discrepancies for the experimental
and numerical results of axial capacity and axial deflection of plain
concrete GFRP-tube confined columns were 1.36% and 10.18%, re-
spectively.
The FE model of the specimen CTCR-0 presented the discrepancies
of 2.52% and 8.90% for ultimate capacity and corresponding
Fig. 7. Experiments and FEA results of the load-deflection response of plain
concrete GFRP-tube confined concrete columns.
632
Structures 26 (2020) 626–638
Fig. 8. Experiments and FEA results of the load-deflection response of CFRP
bars reinforced CFRP-tube confined concrete columns.
deflection, respectively from the experimental measurements. The FE
model of column specimen CTCR-25 presented the discrepancies of
0.85% and 15.54% for ultimate loading capacity and corresponding
axial deflection, respectively from the experimental results. Similarly,
the FE model of specimen CTCR-50 presented the discrepancies of
3.27% and 15.81% for axial capacity and axial deflection, respectively.
The performance of experimental and numerical load-deflection re-
sponse of CFRP bars reinforced CFRP-tube confined concrete columns
was presented in Fig. 8. The average percentage discrepancies of ex-
perimental and FE results of CFRP bars reinforced CFRP-tube confined
concrete specimens for axial load and deflection were 2.22% and
13.42%, respectively.
The performances of experimental and FE load-deflection response
of GFRP bars reinforced GFRP-tube confined concrete columns speci-
mens were presented in Fig. 9. The FE model of the specimen with
GFRP bars reinforced and GFRP-tube confined concrete under con-
centric loading (GTGR-0) presented the discrepancies of 9.12% and
4.16% for ultimate capacity and corresponding deflection, respectively
from the experimental measurements. The FE model of column spe-
cimen GTGR-25 presented the discrepancies of 1.29% and 11.03% for
ultimate loading capacity and corresponding axial deflection, respec-
tively from the experimental results. Similarly, the FE model of spe-
cimen GTGR-50 presented the discrepancies of 1.37% and 12.69% for
axial capacity and axial deflection, respectively. The average percen-
tage discrepancies of experimental and FE results of GFRP bars re-
inforced GFRP-tube confined concrete specimens for axial load and
deflection were 3.81% and 9.02%, respectively.
The elastic behavior of all the specimens confined with either CFRP
tubes or GFRP tubes was traced accurately by the proposed FEM.
Although there were observed some discrepancies in the elastic as well
as post-peak collapse behavior of the plain concrete specimens confined
with CFRP tubes. These discrepancies may be ascribed to the small
imprecisions resulting from the differences between the actual testing
conditions such as boundary conditions, initial geometric imperfec-
tions, the strength of concrete material, strength of FRP bars material,
Fig. 9. Experiments and FEA results of the load-deflection response of GFRP
bars reinforced GFRP-tube confined concrete columns.
A. Raza, et al.
Fig. 10. Experimental and FEA crack patterns of FRP reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP tubes.
manufacturing faults, accuracy of the testing instruments and the
conditions assumed in the FEA modeling. The difference may also be
attributed to the definition of the damage evolution parameters of FRP
tube material and the friction coefficients assumed for the contact
property between the steel plate and concrete materials. However, the
comparison of complete load-deflection curves of the specimens solidly
substantiate the accuracy and the applicability of the proposed FEM.
3.2. Failure patterns
During the early stages of loading, there was observed a linear trend
between the axial loading and deflection of FRP-tube columns but after
the yielding of FRP-tube, the axial loading was linearly increased
creating the second linear part of the curve. Then, the axial loading
reached the ultimate capacity of the members along with the rupture of
633
Structures 26 (2020) 626–638
FRP-tubes causing the rapid drop in the axial capacity. The experi-
mental and numerical crack patterns for all the FRP-tubed columns
were presented in Fig. 10. The concentric columns failed with a sound
due to the rupture of the FRP-confinement tubes and afterward the
cracking of concrete started. Mostly, the eccentric columns failed
during the testing by splitting into parts of unequal lengths showing the
bucking on either side of the specimen [6]. The crack patterns of FEA
models were visualized by maximum positive plastic strain (PE, prin-
cipal) because the direction of cracks is always normal to the PE,
principal in concrete material which accurately represents the cracks
patterns [10,26,40].
4. Parametric study
The calibrated control model was used for the parametric study
A. Raza, et al.
after predicting the structural performance of all FRP reinforced con-
crete columns confined with FRP-tubes. A total of 216 models were
analyzed to examine the effect of GFRP longitudinal reinforcement,
unconfined concrete strength ( f co' ), the thickness of the GFRP tube
(tGFRP) and the diameter of the concrete core (D) on the load-deflection
performance. Different values for FRP longitudinal reinforcement were
1.2%, 1.4%, 1.6%, 1.8%, 2.0%, 2.2%; for f co' ,the various values were
15 MPa, 25 MPa, 35 MPa, 45 MPa, 55 MPa, 65 MPa; for tGFRP, the
various values were 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, 2.5 mm, 3.0 mm
and for D, the various values were 100 mm, 150 mm, 200 mm, 250 mm,
300 mm, and 350 mm. The constant values for longitudinal reinforce-
ment, concrete strength, tube thickness and diameter of the column
were 1.8%, 25 MPa, 2.0 mm and 200 mm, respectively. The height of
the specimens was 800 mm. The yielding strength and elastic modulus
of GFRP-tube and the ultimate strength of GFRP bars were taken ac-
cording to [6].
4.1. Effect of GFRP longitudinal reinforcement ( ρl )
Six levels of GFRP main reinforcement were studied: 1.2%, 1.4%,
1.6%, 1.8%, 2.0%, 2.2%, respectively. Throughout the parametric
study, ρl was taken as 1.8%. It was observed that when ρl were increased
from 1.2 to 2.2% at contact tGFRP of 2 mm and constant D of 200 mm of
the column with the increase of f co' from 15 MPa to 65 MPa, the per-
centage increase in the capacity and corresponding axial deflection of
the FRP-tube column was 179.01% and 15.75%, respectively. Similarly,
with the increase of ρl from 1.2 to 2.2% while increasing the tGFRP from
0.5 mm to 3 mm at constant f co' of 25 MPa and constant D of 200 mm,
the percentage increases in the capacity and deflection were 64.02%
and 34.74%, respectively.
Moreover, the effect of the increase in ρl was 1282.69% and 83.84%
for the axial capacity and corresponding deflection, respectively, with
the increase of D from 100 mm to 350 mm at constant f co' of 25 MPa and
tGFRP of 2 mm. The sensitivity of ρl on the ultimate axial capacity and
equivalent deflection of columns with the increase of f co' , tGFRP and D
were separately presented in three-dimensional Figs. 11(a, b, c) and
12(a, b, c), respectively. It can be monitored that the effect of the in-
crease of the number of ρl along with the increase of diameter was more
dominant with the percentage increase of 1282.69% in axial capacity.
Fig. 11. Effect of GFRP reinforcements, concrete strength, GFRP-tube thickness and diameter of columns on the ultimate axial capacity of columns.
634
Structures 26 (2020) 626–638
4.2. Effect of unconfined concrete strength ( f co' )
The effect of variation of f co' on the ultimate axial capacity and
corresponding deflection was represented in Figs. 11(a, d, e) and 12(a,
d, e), respectively. The plastic parameters of concrete were kept the
same for the parametric study, but the compressive and tensile behavior
was changed accordingly. It was observed that with the increase of f co'
from 15 to 65 MPa along with the increase of GFRP reinforcement from
1.2 to 2.2% at constant tGFRP of 2 mm and constant D of 200 mm, the
percentage increase of 179.01% and 15.75% occurred for axial capacity
and corresponding axial deflection, respectively. When f co' was in-
creased with the increase of tGFRP from 0.5 mm to 3 mm, the percentage
increase of 222.23% and 27.49% was observed for ultimate capacity
and equivalent deflection, respectively. Similarly, the effect of the in-
crease in f co' was 2157.44% and 30.69% due to an increase in the dia-
meter of columns for axial capacity and deflection, respectively.
4.3. Effect of GFRP-tube thickness (tGFRP)
The thicknesses of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3 mm of GFRP-tube were
investigated to observe their effect on the capacity of columns. By in-
creasing the tGFRP from 0.5 mm to 3 mm along with the increase of the
number of GFRP reinforcement from 1.2 to 2.2%, the percentage in-
crease of 64.02% and 34.74% occurred in ultimate capacity and cor-
responding deflection. Similarly, with the increase of tGFRP from 0.5 mm
to 3 mm, the percentage increase of 1192.63% for load and 11.79% for
deflection occurred with the incrementation of diameter from 100 mm
to 350 mm at constant f co' of 25 MPa and GFRP reinforcement of 1.8%
as shown in Figs. 11 and 12.
4.4. Effect of diameter of column (D)
The diameter of columns (D) was studied up to 6 levels: 100, 159,
200, 250, 300 and 350 mm to determine its sensitivity on the load-
deflection behavior of FRP-tubed columns. The effect of variation of D
was presented in Fig. 11(c, e, f) for ultimate capacity and in Fig. 12(c, e,
f) for deflection at ultimate capacity. It was observed that the effect of
the increase in the diameter of the column remained more significant
for the increase of the ultimate capacity of columns. The percentage
A. Raza, et al.
Fig. 12. Effect of GFRP reinforcement, concrete strength, GFRP-tube thickness and diameter of columns on the axial deflection at the ultimate load of columns.
increases of 1282.69%, 2157.44%, and 1192.63% were observed for
ultimate capacity while increasing the diameter up to 350 mm with the
increase of GFRP reinforcement from 1.2 to 2.2%, f co' from 15 MPa to
65 MPa and tGFRP from 0.5 mm to 3 mm, respectively. Similarly, it can
be observed that the percentage increases of 83.84%, 30.69%, and
11.79% were obtained in the axial deflection at ultimate capacity due
to an increase of D by enhancing the GFRP reinforcement, f co' and tGFRP,
respectively.
Hence, it can be deduced from the extensive parametric study that
the effect of increasing the GFRP reinforcement, f co' , tGFRP and D of the
FRP-tube columns was significant for the increment in their capacity
with the dominant effect of the increase of D but the axial deflection at
ultimate capacity expressed no significant increase due to enhanced
stiffness of the members.
5. Proposed empirical model for axial strength
5.1. Constructed database
It was concluded from the literature review that no analytical model
was proposed for predicting the axial strength of FRP-tube columns
internally reinforced with FRP bars. In the current research, the ana-
lytical model was proposed based on the large experimental database
giving more accurate results of the ultimate axial capacity of composite
FRP confined columns. A large database of confined concrete strength
was developed from the previous researches and evaluated based on the
previously proposed strength models to remove the error giving data
points which cause the saturation of the RMSE index. After removing
the data points giving error more than 20%, 685 sample points were left
which were used for the general regression analysis to propose the FRP-
confined concrete strength model. The statistical information of the
developed database was presented in Table 5.
5.2. Proposed axial capacity model
The analytical model to predict the axial capacity of FRP bars re-
inforced concrete columns confined with FRP-tubes consists of two
parts: one is due to confinement stress and the second is due to the
ultimate capacity of GFRP-tube. For the first part of the analytical
635
Structures 26 (2020) 626–638
capacity model, the strength models of confined concrete given by Lam
and Teng [41], Fardis and Khalili [42], Newman and Newman [43],
Karbhari and Gao [44], Toutanji [45], Teng et al. [46], Mander et al.
[29], Richart et al. [47], Samaan et al. [48], Saafi et al. [49], Miyauchi
et al. [50] and Matthys et al. [51] were evaluated using some statistical
parameters such as root mean square error (RMSE), coefficient of de-
termination (R2) and the sum of squared errors (SSE) on the developed
database to propose a general form of the analytical model.
The performance of Lam and Teng model [41] remained good with
RMSE = 0.244 and R2 = 0.903. Thus, the general form of the confined
concrete strength equation was adopted from this model. Fig. 13 re-
presents the performance of different studied strength models taken
from literature. The ultimate loading capacity (Pn) of FRP-tube confined
RC columns can be defined as:
Pn = Pconfinement + PFRPtube (10)
where, Pconfinement is the ultimate loading capacity of the column due to
confined concrete and PFRPtube is the ultimate loading capacity of the
column due to GFRP-tube. The ultimate loading capacity due to con-
finement can be expressed as:
Pconfinement = Acc f cc' (11)
where, Acc is the concrete cross-sectional core area confined by FRP-
tube together and f cc' is the axial strength of confined concrete. The
general form of the equation of f cc' was adopted from Lam and Teng
model [41] as presented in Eq. (12).
f cc' fl
= 1 + k( )n
fco fco (12)
where, k and n are constants to be determined and fl is maximum
combined confinement stress provided by FRP-tube together which can
be represented by the Eq. (13) given below:
2Ef εh, rup tFRP 2tFRP f y
fl = +
Dc Dc − 2tFRP (13)
where, Dc is the concrete core diameter of the column, Ef is the elastic
modulus of FRPs, tFRP is total the thickness of GFRP-tube and εh, rup is the
rupture strain of FRPs in hoop direction whose relation was provided by
A. Raza, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 626–638

Table 5
Statistical information of the collected data.
Parameter D (mm) H (mm) tFRP (mm) Ef (GPa) f'co (MPa) f'cc (MPa) εco (%) εcc (%) εcc/εco f'cc/f'co

Min value 51 102 0.09 10 12.4 18.5 0.17 0.08 0.41 1.02
Max value 406 812 5.9 663 188.2 302.2 1.53 4.6 20.7 3.9
Mean 153.4 307.1 0.9 172.7 42.4 76 0.27 1.53 6.3 1.9
St. Dev 43.8 87.6 1.06 119.8 22.6 35 0.14 0.85 3.91 0.66
COV 0.29 0.29 1.18 0.7 0.54 0.47 0.52 0.56 0.63 0.35

Lim et al. [52] using genetic programming: Eq. (16).

εf
εh, rup = f cc' fl
f co'
0.125
= 1 + 2.8( )0.744
(14) f co' f co' (15)
After performing some preliminary evaluations using statistical
0.256
parameters (R2, SSE, and RMSE) for the curve fitting technique in f cc' = f co' + 2.8f co' fl 0.744 (16)
MATLAB to achieve the best fit, the selected values for the coefficients k
and n were 2.8 and 0.744, respectively. Thus, the proposed analytical The performance of the proposed analytical strength model for the
model for the axial strength of confined concrete was presented using predictions of the axial strength of confined concrete was represented in

Fig. 13. Performance of previously proposed strength models of confined concrete on the developed database (a ~ b).

636
A. Raza, et al.
Fig. 14. Performance of proposed empirical strength model of confined con-
crete on the developed database.
Fig. 14. It can be observed that the proposed model gave a lesser error
with R2 = 0.91 and RMSE = 0.20 as compared with previous strength
models and thus, selected in the present study.
Thus, Eq. (11) can be rewritten in the form of as:
0.256
Pconfinement = Acc [f co' + 2.8f co' fl 0.744 ]
The ultimate capacity of FRP-tube (PFRPtube ) can be found using the
continuous strength method which has been established to exploit the
strain hardening for determining the FRP-tube cross-section resistances.
The behavior of FRP-tube was assumed to be bilinear [4].
PFRPtube = AFRPtube σLB
where, AFRPtube is the gross cross-sectional area of FRP-tube and σLB is
the stress defining the local buckling of the tube which can be measured
by using Eqs. (19) and (20) proposed by Buchanan and Gardner [53].
The maximum participation of FRP-tube in the ultimate loading capa-
city and ductility of the FRP-tube confined composite columns is due to
its strain-hardening characteristics [23].
εLB
σLB = EεLB < 1.0
ε0.2
εLB ε study of FRP-composite columns, the following main conclusions were
σLB = ε0.2 + Esh ε0.2 ( − 1) LB ≥ 1.0
ε0.2 ε0.2
where, εLB is the local buckling strain, ε0.2 is the 2% proof strain of FRP-
tube, E is Young’s modulus of FRP-tube is an elastic part of the curve
and Esh is Young’s modulus during the strain hardening in the bi-linear
performance of FRP-tube. The expression between the cross-sectional
slenderness of the tube and deformation capacity can be represented by
the Eq. (21) as proposed by Buchanan and Gardner [53].
εLB 4.44 × 10−3 0.1εu
= ≤ minimum (15, )
ε0.2 λc4.5 ε0.2
The cross-sectional slenderness (λ c ) is represented by:
σ0.2
λc =
σcr
where, σ0.2 is the 2% proof stress obtained from the stress-strain per-
formance of FRP-tube and σcr is the local critical stress in the elastic
region of FRP-tube. Thus, the ultimate loading capacity (Pn) of the FRP-
tube confined concrete columns can be rewritten in the following
general form.
0.256
Pn = Acc f cc' + AFRPtube σLB = Acc [f co' + 2.8f co' fl 0.744 ] + AFRPtube σLB
This is the proposed equation for predicting the maximum loading
capacity of FRP bars reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP-
tubes under axial loadings. For the validation of the proposed empirical
model, a comparative study was performed between the FEA results of
216 specimens attained from the numerical parametric study and the
Structures 26 (2020) 626–638
Fig. 15. Comparative study of axial capacity obtained from FEA and proposed
model.
predictions of the proposed analytical model. Fig. 15 shows the com-
parison between the predictions of the proposed analytical model and
the proposed constitutive FEA model with the coefficient of determi-
nation (R2) of 0.96%.
(17)
6. Summary and conclusions
Using the previous experimental results, a constitutive FEA model of
FRP-RC columns confined with CFRP and GFRP-tubes was proposed
using a modified CDP model after the validation and convergence for
different variables and boundary conditions. The FEA results of the
(18)
FRP-RC columns were evaluated in comparison with that of experi-
ments and observations which confirmed the capability of the proposed
constitutive numerical model to capture the behavior of FRP-RC col-
umns confined with FRP-tubes accurately. A numerical parametric
study using the proposed FEA model was also carried out to examine
the effect of different critical parameters, geometric configurations and
material characteristics on the structural performance of FRP-RC col-
umns. Finally, an analytical capacity model was proposed based on the
large previous experimental database of confined concrete compression
(19)
members. Based on the experimental study, FEA and the analytical
(20) drawn:
The confinement of concrete-filled FRP-tube columns using FRP
longitudinal bars effectively prevents the outward local buckling and
improves the structural performance in terms of axial loading capacity
and axial deflection of columns. GFRP reinforcement along with GFRP-
tube confinement remained efficient in terms of axial loading capacity
and ductility of columns under both concentric and eccentric loading.
The FEA results demonstrated a close agreement between the ex-
perimental and the FEA predictions of FRP-RC columns with the
(21) average percentage discrepancies of 3.03% and 10.75% for the ultimate
axial loading capacity and corresponding axial deflection, respectively.
Thus, the current finite element approach presents a helpful tool for the
investigation of complex confinement mechanisms of FRP reinforced
(22) concrete columns confined with FRP-tubes for design purposes. The
finite element crack patterns of FRP reinforced concrete columns con-
fined with FRP-tubes were visualized through maximum positive
principal plastic strains in ABAQUS which revealed that the experi-
mental crack patterns were accurately traced by the FEA model.
The parametric study results revealed that with the increase of the
number of GFRP reinforcement, the thickness of confining GFRP tube,
unconfined concrete axial compressive strength, and diameter of col-
(23)
umns, there was observed an increase in the axial loading capacity and
corresponding deflection. With the increase of GFRP reinforcement
ratio from 1.2 to 2.2%, the axial capacity and deflection were increased
by 179.01% and 15.75%; with the increase of thickness of GFRP-tube
from 0.5 to 3 mm, the axial capacity and deflection were increased by
64.02% and 34.74%; with the increase of unconfined concrete axial
637
A. Raza, et al.
strength from 15 MPa to 65 MPa, the axial capacity and deflection were
increased by 222.23% and 27.49% and with the increase of core dia-
meter of concrete from 100 mm to 350 mm, the axial capacity and
deflection were increased by 2157.44% and 30.69% which was the
most dominant effect.
The proposed analytical model based on the regression analysis for
predicting the ultimate axial loading capacity of FRP reinforced con-
crete columns confined with FRP-tubes presented a close agreement
with the predictions of the FEA model with a coefficient of determi-
nation of 0.96%. Thus, the proposed FEA model and the analytical
model can be used for the analysis and design of various critical para-
meters of FRP reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP-tubes
accurately.
7. Availability of data
Data will be available on request from the corresponding author.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors whose names are listed in this paper certify that they
have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity
with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants;
participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, con-
sultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testi-
mony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such
as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or
beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Fam A, Qie FS, Rizkalla S. Concrete-filled steel tubes subjected to axial compression
and lateral cyclic loads. J Struct Eng 2004;130(4):631–40.
[2] O'Shea MD, Bridge RQ. Design of circular thin-walled concrete filled steel tubes. J
Struct Eng 2000;126(11):1295–303.
[3] Xiao Y. Applications of FRP composites in concrete columns. Adv Struct Eng
2004;7(4):335–43.
[4] Sharif AM, Al-Mekhlafi GM, Al-Osta MA. Structural performance of CFRP-
strengthened concrete-filled stainless steel tubular short columns. Eng Struct
2019;183:94–109.
[5] Huang L, et al. Compressive behaviour of large rupture strain FRP-confined con-
crete-encased steel columns. Constr Build Mater 2018;183:513–22.
[6] Hadi MN, Khan QS, Sheikh MN. Axial and flexural behavior of unreinforced and
FRP bar reinforced circular concrete filled FRP tube columns. Constr Build Mater
2016;122:43–53.
[7] Liang J, Zou WJ, Wang ZL, Liu D. Compressive behavior of CFRP-confined partially
encased concrete columns under axial loading. Compos Struct 2019;229:111479.
[8] Al-Mekhlafi G, Al-Osta MA, Sharif AM. Behavior of eccentrically loaded concrete-
filled stainless steel tubular stub columns confined by CFRP composites. Eng Struct
2020;205:110113.
[9] Elsanadedy H, Al-Salloum YA, Abbas H, Alsayed SH. Prediction of strength para-
meters of FRP-confined concrete. Compos B Eng 2012;43(2):228–39.
[10] Raza A, Shah SAR, Khan AR, Aslam MA, Khan TA, Arshad K, et al. Sustainable FRP-
confined symmetric concrete structures: an application experimental and numerical
validation process for reference data. Appl Sci 2020;10(1):333.
[11] Ahmad A, Khan QUZ, Raza A. Reliability analysis of strength models for CFRP-
confined concrete cylinders. Compos Struct 2020:112312.
[12] Cevik A, Guzelbey IH. Neural network modeling of strength enhancement for CFRP
confined concrete cylinders. Build Environ 2008;43(5):751–63.
[13] Naderpour H, Kheyroddin A, Amiri GG. Prediction of FRP-confined compressive
strength of concrete using artificial neural networks. Compos Struct
2010;92(12):2817–29.
[14] Oreta AW, Ongpeng J. Modeling the confined compressive strength of hybrid cir-
cular concrete columns using neural networks. Comput Concr 2011;8(5):597–616.
[15] Pham TM, Hadi MNS. Predicting stress and strain of FRP-confined square/rectan-
gular columns using artificial neural networks. J Compos Constr
2014;18(6):04014019.
[16] Shi Y, Swait T, Soutis C. Modelling damage evolution in composite laminates
subjected to low velocity impact. Compos Struct 2012;94(9):2902–13.
[17] Matthews FL, Davies GAO, Hitchings D, Soutis C. Finite element modelling of
composite materials and structures. Elsevier; 2000.
[18] Dai P, Yang L, Wang J, Zhou Y. Compressive strength of concrete-filled stainless
638
Structures 26 (2020) 626–638
steel tube stub columns. Eng Struct 2020;205:110106.
[19] dos Santos L, de Sousa Cardoso H, Caldas RB, Grilo LF. Finite element model for
bolted shear connectors in concrete-filled steel tubular columns. Eng Struct
2020;203:109863.
[20] Ahmed M, Liang QQ, Patel VI, Hadi MNS. Nonlinear analysis of square concrete-
filled double steel tubular slender columns incorporating preload effects. Eng Struct
2020;207:110272.
[21] Tao Z, Wang Z-B, Yu Q. Finite element modelling of concrete-filled steel stub col-
umns under axial compression. J Constr Steel Res 2013;89:121–31.
[22] Patel VI, Liang QQ, Hadi MN. Nonlinear analysis of axially loaded circular concrete-
filled stainless steel tubular short columns. J Constr Steel Res 2014;101:9–18.
[23] Tao Z, et al. Nonlinear analysis of concrete-filled square stainless steel stub columns
under axial compression. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67(11):1719–32.
[24] Ellobody E, Young B, Lam D. Behaviour of normal and high strength concrete-filled
compact steel tube circular stub columns. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62(7):706–15.
[25] Chang X, et al. Study on concrete-filled stainless steel–carbon steel tubular (CFSCT)
stub columns under compression. Thin-Walled Struct 2013;63:125–33.
[26] Raza A, Khan QUZ, Ahmad A. Numerical investigation of load-carrying capacity of
GFRP-reinforced rectangular concrete members using CDP model in ABAQUS. Adv
Civ Eng 2019;2019.
[27] Hany NF, Hantouche EG, Harajli MH. Finite element modeling of FRP-confined
concrete using modified concrete damaged plasticity. Eng Struct 2016;125:1–14.
[28] Rousakis TC, Karabinis A, Kiousis PD, Tepfers R. Analytical modelling of plastic
behaviour of uniformly FRP confined concrete members. Compos B Eng
2008;39(7–8):1104–13.
[29] Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[30] Hu H-T, et al. Nonlinear analysis of axially loaded concrete-filled tube columns with
confinement effect. J Struct Eng 2003;129(10):1322–9.
[31] Hassanein M. Numerical modelling of concrete-filled lean duplex slender stainless
steel tubular stub columns. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(8–9):1057–68.
[32] American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-95. Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete. Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA: American Concrete Institute;
1999.
[33] Wang J, Chen Y. ABAQUS application in civil engineering. China: Zhejiang
University Press; 2006.
[34] Huang Z, Liew JYR. Nonlinear finite element modelling and parametric study of
curved steel-concrete-steel double skin composite panels infilled with ultra-light-
weight cement composite. Constr Build Mater 2015;95:922–38.
[35] Ibrahim AM, Fahmy MF, Wu Z. 3D finite element modeling of bond-controlled
behavior of steel and basalt FRP-reinforced concrete square bridge columns under
lateral loading. Compos Struct 2016;143:33–52.
[36] Hashin Z, Rotem A. A fatigue failure criterion for fiber reinforced materials. J
Compos Mater 1973;7(4):448–64.
[37] Hashin Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites. J Appl Mech
1980;47(2):329–34.
[38] Lee J, Fenves GL. A plastic-damage concrete model for earthquake analysis of dams.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1998;27(9):937–56.
[39] Wu J, Li J, Faria R. An energy release rate-based plastic-damage model for concrete.
Int J Solids Struct 2006;43(3–4):583–612.
[40] Raza A, Khan QUZ. Experimental and numerical behavior of hybrid fiber reinforced
concrete compression members under concentric loading. SN. Appl Sci 2020:2.
[41] Lam L, Teng J. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete.
Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):471–89.
[42] Fardis MN, Khalili HH. FRP-encased concrete as a structural material. Mag Concr
Res 1982;34(121):191–202.
[43] Newman K, Newman J. Failure theories and design criteria for plain concrete.
Struct, Solid Sechanics Eng Des 1971:963–95.
[44] Karbhari VM, Gao Y. Composite jacketed concrete under uniaxial com-
pression—verification of simple design equations. J Mater Civ Eng
1997;9(4):185–93.
[45] Toutanji HA. Stress-strain characteristics of concrete columns externally confined
with advanced fiber composite sheets. ACI Mater J 1999;96(3):397–404.
[46] Teng J, et al. Refinement of a design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined
concrete. J Compos Constr 2009;13(4):269–78.
[47] Richart FE, Brandtzæg A, Brown R.L. Failure of plain and spirally reinforced con-
crete in compression. 1929, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, College of
Engineering.
[48] Samaan M, Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Model of concrete confined by fiber compo-
sites. J Struct Eng 1998;124(9):1025–31.
[49] Saafi M, Toutanji HA, Li Z. Behavior of concrete columns confined with fiber re-
inforced polymer tubes. ACI Mater J 1999;96(4):500–9.
[50] Miyauchi, K. Estimation of strengthening effects with carbon fiber sheet for con-
crete column. in Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Non-Metallic
(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. 1997. Japan Concrete Institute.
[51] Matthys S, Toutanji H, Audenaert Katrien, Taerwe Luc. Axial load behavior of large-
scale columns confined with fiber- reinforced polymer composites. ACI Struct J
2005;102(2):258.
[52] Jian C, Lim MK, Ozbakkaloglu Togay. Evaluation of ultimate conditions of FRP-
confined concrete columns using genetic programming. Comput Struct
2016;162:28–37.
[53] Buchanan C, G.L., Liew A, The continuous strength method for the design of circular
hollow sections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2016. 118: p. 207-16.