polymers
Article
Compressive Behavior of FRP Grid-Reinforced UHPC
Tubular Columns
Junjie Zeng 1,2, * and Tianwei Long 1






Citation: Zeng, J.; Long, T.
Compressive Behavior of FRP
Grid-Reinforced UHPC Tubular
Columns. Polymers 2022, 14, 125.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
polym14010125
Academic Editor: Marcin Masłowski
Received: 15 November 2021
Accepted: 6 December 2021
Published: 30 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Polymers 2022, 14, 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14010125
1 Department of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology,
Guangzhou 510006, China; dwqfrp@163.com
2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Macau, Macau 999078, China
* Correspondence: jjzeng@gdut.edu.cn
Abstract: In this study, a novel form of tubular columns that is made of ultra-high-performance
concrete (UHPC) internally reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) grid (herein referred to as
FRP grid-UHPC tubular column) was developed. The axial compression test results of FRP grid-UHPC
tubular columns with and without in-filled concrete are presented and discussed. Effects of the
number of the FRP grid-reinforcing cages, the presence of in-filled concrete, and the presence of
external FRP confinement were investigated. The test results confirmed that the FRP-UHPC tubular
columns have a satisfactory compressive strength, and the strength and ductility of FRP-confined
concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube columns are enhanced due to the confinement from the FRP wrap.
The proposed FRP grid-reinforced UHPC composite tubes are attractive in structural applications as
pipelines or permanent formworks for columns, as well as external jackets (can be prefabricated in
the form of two halves of tubes) for strengthening deteriorated reinforced concrete columns.
Keywords: fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP); FRP grid; ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC);
permanent formwork; tubular column; compression
1. Introduction
Ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) has recently attracted increasing attention
for structural applications [1–10]. UHPC has a dense micro-structure, thus possessing
unique merits such as high strength, high durability, and high crack resistance [1]. A
number of studies have been conducted on enhancing or understanding the mechanical
properties of UHPC [11–19]. Although UHPC has a number of advantages, widespread
usage of UHPC has not been achieved and UHPC has only been used in structures for
particular purposes (e.g., low-weight, large-span structures, fatigue strengthening of bridge
decks, or durability upgrading of structures in harsh marine environments) [20–27] due to
a lack of design codes [20].
Due to the excellent mechanical properties, UHPC with or without internal steel rein-
forcement has been used for strengthening existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures in
the form of permanent formworks or jacketing materials (Figure 1). Note that prefabricated
a permanent formwork system, which is easy to construct and can shorten the in situ con-
struction time, is an attractive alternative to the conventional formwork system. Particularly,
UHPC tubular members have been used for manufacturing permanent formworks [5–10].
Tian et al. [5] reported results of an experimental investigation and numerical simulation
of RC columns with UHPC stay-in-place formwork under axial compression. They found
that an increase in UHPC formwork thickness increases the load-carrying capacity and
stiffness of the columns significantly, while the reinforcing FRP grid layers and grid types
have little influence on the mechanical properties of the UHPC formwork. However, an
increase in the UHPC formwork thickness increases the brittleness of the formed composite
columns. Chen et al. [28] conducted studies on the compressive behavior of concrete
columns jacketed with basalt fiber textile-reinforced engineered cementitious composites
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers
 Polymers 2022, 14, 125 2 of 20

(ECC) and found that the strength and ductility of the test columns were superior to those
of columns confined with textile-reinforced plain mortar. Besides, other high-performance
cementitious composites (e.g., reactive powder concrete) with or without internal steel
reinforcement [25,26] have also been adopted as the external strengthening layer of RC
columns. The above existing studies on the compressive behavior of RC columns jacketed
with high-performance cementitious materials revealed that the load-carrying capacity
of RC columns can be enhanced by the high-performance cementitious materials, while
such strengthening technique led to little improvement of the column ductility due to
Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEWthe weak deformation capacity of the strengthening layer. It is thus expected that3 ofmore
21
effective internal reinforcement should be included in the UHPC jacket for improvement of
its deformation capacity.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 1. 1.
Figure Three-dimensional diagram
Three-dimensional of of
diagram different types
different ofof
types specimens. (a)(a)
specimens. FRP grid-UHPC
FRP tubular
grid-UHPC tubular
column; (b) Concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube column; (c) CFRP-confined concrete-filled FRP
column; (b) Concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube column; (c) CFRP-confined concrete-filled FRP
grid-UHPC tube column.
grid-UHPC tube column.

2. Specimens and Materials

2.1. Compression Test Specimens and Preparation
Circular FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns and concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube
columns were prepared and tested in this study. Some of the columns were further con-
fined with a one-ply or two-ply carbon FRP (CFRP) wrap so as to investigate effects of an
Polymers 2022, 14, 125 3 of 20

On the other hand, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites, which possess excellent
tensile mechanical properties and durability in harsh environmental conditions [29–34],
have been adopted as reinforcement in various cementitious composites or an external
strengthening layer for existing structures [35–49]. FRPs have been used as reinforcement in
various forms in cementitious composites, such as FRP grids or sometimes un-impregnated
fiber fabrics such as textiles [50–60]. By implementing FRP reinforcement in cementi-
tious composites, the tensile properties of cementitious composites can be substantially
enhanced, and the fiber content used in cementitious composites can be reduced. The
most widely studied cementitious composite is ECC [61–67]. Al-Gemeel and Zhuge [52,58]
investigated compressive behavior of circular and square columns strengthened with basalt
fiber grid-reinforced ECC mortar. They found that the load-carrying capacity and the
ductility of concrete columns can be enhanced by basalt textile-reinforced ECC, whereas it
was found that using textile-reinforced mortar may result in a lower ultimate axial stain
due to the cracking of the mortar caused by premature failure of the textile. However,
only very limited studies have been conducted on UHPC plates reinforced with FRP
composites [68,69], and studies on UHPC tubular columns with FRP grid reinforcement
have never been reported.
To this end, a novel form of tubular columns, termed as FRP grid-reinforced UHPC
tubular columns (abbreviated as FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns), were proposed in this
study (Figure 1). It was expected that the combined usage of the FRP grid and UHPC
would lead to a novel form of thin-walled plates with superior mechanical behavior, as
the FRP reinforcement further enhances the strength and deformation capacities of UHPC
plates. The excellent durability of both FRP grids and UHPC allows the usage of corrosive
raw materials for the cementitious mixture [11,57]. For example, seawater and sea-sand
can be directly applied in the system to construct coastal and marine infrastructures, thus
reducing freshwater, river-sand, and materials transportation costs [11,27,47–49]. The FRP
grid-UHPC tubular members can also be used for strengthening existing RC columns, if
the members are prefabricated in the form of two half pieces of tubes, which should be
connected in situ to form a tube to facilitate confinement.
The aim of the present study was to investigate the compressive behavior of the
proposed FRP-UHPC tubular columns and their confinement effect on in-filled concrete
by testing a number of FRP-UHPC tubular columns with and without in-filled concrete
(Figure 1a,b). In total, 30 column specimens were prepared, and the effects of the number
of the FRP grid-reinforcing cages, the position of the FRP grid reinforcement, the presence
of in-filled concrete, and the presence of external FRP confinement (Figure 1c) on the
compressive behavior of the columns were investigated.

2. Specimens and Materials

2.1. Compression Test Specimens and Preparation
Circular FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns and concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube
columns were prepared and tested in this study. Some of the columns were further confined
with a one-ply or two-ply carbon FRP (CFRP) wrap so as to investigate effects of an
additional external FRP confining jacket on the compressive behavior of these columns. The
main parameters investigated in this study included the number of CFRP grid-reinforcing
cages, the thickness of the external FRP jacket (0.167 mm and 0.334 mm), and the presence
of in-filled concrete. Note that either one or two CFRP reinforcing grids were designed in
the tubular columns, and the position of the CFRP reinforcing grids can be seen in Figure 2.
The combinations of above parameters led to a total of 30 columnal specimens (Figure 2),
and their details are given in Table 1. All the columns had a diameter of 190 mm, a height
of 400 mm, and a UHPC thickness of 30 mm. The convention of specimen name contained
four parts (Table 1): (i) a letter “H” or “S” represents “Hollow” or “Solid”; (ii) a letter
“A/B/C” represents the location of the reinforcing CFRP grid and a subsequent number
denotes the number of reinforcing CFRP grid cages; (iii) a number represents the number
of external CFRP jacket layers; (iv) a Roman letter “I/II” denotes the label of the repeated
Polymers 2022, 14, 125 4 of 20

specimen. The name of “H-A1C1-0-I” means this is the first hollow CFRP grid-UHPC
Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
column with two CFRP grid-reinforcing cages, which are located in position A and position
C without external CFRP confinement.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 2. Dimensions of specimens (unit: mm). (a) Position A (𝑑 150 mm); (b) Position B
Figure 2. Dimensions of specimens (unit: mm). (a) Position A (d grid = 150 mm); (b) Position B
(𝑑 160 mm); (c) Position C (𝑑 170 mm).
(d grid = 160 mm); (c) Position C (d grid = 170 mm).

Figure 3 shows the procedure of specimen preparation. The CFRP grid-reinforcing

cage with designed dimensions was prepared (Figure 4a). This CFRP grid-reinforcing cage
was then put in the formwork assembled by a central foamy cylinder and an external PVC
tube (Figure 3b). The position of the CFRP grid-reinforcing cage, the foamy cylinder, and
the PVC tube were fixed before UHPC casting (Figure 3c). For concrete-filled FRP grid-
UHPC tube columns, the ready FRP-UHPC tubes were subsequently filled with ready-mix
commercial concrete provided by a local supplier.

2.2. Ultra-High-Performance Concrete and In-Filled Concrete

The UHPC was made in the laboratory. Table 2 shows the UHPC raw materials made
from quartz powder, super-plasticizer, silica fume, water, and cement (52.5R type I [70]).
As the tubular columns were reinforced with CFRP grids, no fiber was added in the UHPC
mortar. Tap water was used as the mixing water and the ratio (by weight) of water-to-
cementitious materials was 0.19. The silica fume had an average particle size of 0.70 µm,
and the weight ratio between silica fume and quartz powder was 2:3. Quartz powder with
two size levels was utilized in this study.
(a) (b)
Polymers 2022, 14, 125 5 of 20

Table 1. Details of test specimens.

Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
Diameter of FRP Number of the FRP Number of the
Specimens FRP Grid Positioning
Grid (mm) Grid Layer CFRP Jacket Layer
H-L0-0-I N.A. N.A. 0 0
H-L0-0-II N.A. N.A. 0 0
H-B1-0-I B 160 1 0
H-B1-0-II B 160 1 0
H-B2-0-I B 160 2 0
H-B2-0-II B 160 2 0
A 170 1
H-A1C1-0-I 0
C 150 1
A 170 1
H-A1C1-0-II 0
C 150 1
H-A2-0-I A 170 2 0
H-A2-0-II A 170 2 0
S-B2-0-I B 160 2 0
S-B2-0-II (a) B 160 2 (b) 0
A 170 1
S-A1C1-0-I 0
C 150 1
A 170 1
S-A1C1-0-II 0
C 150 1
S-A2-0-I A 170 2 0
S-A2-0-II A 170 2 0
S-B2-1-I B 160 2 1
S-B2-1-II B 160 2 1
A 170 1
S-A1C1-1-I 1
C 150 1
A 170 1
S-A1C1-1-II 1
C 150 1
A 170 1
S-A1C1-2-I 2
C 150 1
A (c)
170 1
S-A1C1-2-II 2
C 150 1
Figure 2. Dimensions of specimens (unit: mm). (a) Position A (𝑑 150 mm); (b) Position B
(𝑑 160 mm);
Note: N.A.—Not applicable.
(c) Position C (𝑑 170 mm).

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Cont.
FOR PEERPolymers
REVIEW 2022, 14, 125 6 of 21 6 of 20
Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21

(c)
(c)
Figure 3. Preparation of formwork
Figure 3. for UHPC tubes.
Preparation (a) FRP grid;
of formwork (b) Formwork
for UHPC tubes. (a)with
FRPagrid;
PVC (b)
tube;
Formwork with a PVC tube;
Figure 3. Preparation of formwork for UHPC tubes. (a) FRP grid; (b) Formwork with a PVC tube;
(c) Fixed formwork. (c)(c)
Fixed formwork.
Fixed formwork.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure 4. FRP grid-reinforced UHPC dumbbell and tensile test set-up. (a) FRP grid-reinforced
Figure
Figure 4. FRP
4. FRP grid-reinforced
grid-reinforced UHPC UHPC dumbbell
dumbbell and tensile
and tensile test set-up.
test set-up. (a) FRP grid-reinforced
(a) FRP grid-reinforced UHPC
UHPC dumbbell; (b) Tensile test set-up.
UHPC dumbbell;
dumbbell; (b) Tensile(b) Tensile
test test set-up.
set-up.
2.2. Ultra-High-Performance Concrete and In-Filled Concrete
2.2. Ultra-High-Performance Concrete and In-Filled Concrete
Table 2. UHPC mix proportion (by weight).
The UHPC was made in the laboratory. Table 2 shows the UHPC raw materials made
The UHPC was made in the laboratory. Table 2 shows the UHPC raw materials made
from quartz
Cement (P·II 52.5R)powder, super-plasticizer,
Quartzfrom
Powder silica
Silicafume,
Fume water, andSand
cement (52.5R type I [70]).
Water
quartz powder, super-plasticizer, silica fume, water, and cementSuper-Plasticizer
(52.5R type I [70]).
As the
1.00 tubular columns were
0.25 reinforced with CFRP
1.10 grids, no fiber was
0.37 added in the UHPC
0.19 0.04
As the tubular columns were reinforced with CFRP grids, no fiber was added in the UHPC
mortar. Tap water was used as the mixing water and the ratio (by weight) of water-to-
mortar. Tap water was used as the mixing water and the ratio (by weight) of water-to-
cementitious materials was 0.19. The silica fume had an average particle size of 0.70 μm,
cementitious materials was 0.19. The silica fume had an average particle size of 0.70 μm,
 Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21

Polymers 2022, 14, 125 7 of 20

and the weight ratio between silica fume and quartz powder was 2:3. Quartz powder with
two size levels was utilized in this study.

Table 2. UHPC mix proportion (by weight).

All the column specimens, as well as the material property of testing samples, were
Cement (P·II Quartz Pow-
formed from the same batch of Fume
Silica UHPC material.
Sand TheWaterUHPCSuper-Plasti-
strength f co,u0 (165.5 MPa), the
52.5R) der cizer
ultimate axial strain ε co,u (0.0034), and modulus of elasticity Ec,u (51.1 GPa) were determined
1.00 0.25 1.10 0.37 0.19 0.04
using compression tests on standard cylinders of 50 mm diameter and 100 mm height
based oncolumn
All the ASTMspecimens,
C109/C109M-2016 [71]. Two
as well as the material batches
property of UHPC
of testing samples,that
werewas reinforced with
formed from the same
and without steelbatch of UHPC
fibers werematerial.
made,The andUHPCthreestrength 𝑓 , (165.5
cylinders MPa),batch
of each the of UHPC were
ultimate axial strain 𝜀 , (0.0034), and modulus of elasticity 𝐸 ,
prepared. The UHPC workability was measured by a mini-slump spread test conducted in(51.1 GPa) were deter-
mined using compression tests on standard cylinders of 50 mm diameter and 100 mm
accordance with ASTM C1856/C1856M-2017 [72]. The average slump flow diameter of the
height based on ASTM C109/C109M-2016 [71]. Two batches of UHPC that was reinforced
UHPC
with was 170
and without steelmm,
fibersbased on three
were made, mini-slump
and three cylinders of spread
each batch tests.
of UHPCThewerein-filled concrete had
an elastic
prepared. Themodulus of 28.4 GPa,
UHPC workability a compressive
was measured strength
by a mini-slump of 42.3
spread MPa, and an ultimate axial
test conducted
instrain
accordance with ASTM C1856/C1856M-2017 [72]. The average slump flow diameter of
of 0.0026.
the UHPC was 170 mm, based on three mini-slump spread tests. The in-filled concrete
Tensile tests on FRP grid (one-ply)-UHPC were also conducted to look at the tensile
had an elastic modulus of 28.4 GPa, a compressive strength of 42.3 MPa, and an ultimate
properties of UHPC by direct tensile tests of dumbbell samples. The dumbbell samples
axial strain of 0.0026.
(Figure
Tensile4a), which
tests on FRP were prepared using
grid (one-ply)-UHPC steel
were molds,
also conducted hadtoalook
thickness of 13 mm and consisted
at the tensile
properties
of a centralof UHPC testby direct tensile
region of 80 tests
mmoflength
dumbbell and samples.
30 mm Thewidth
dumbbell samples
(Figure 4a). The ends were
(Figure
expanded4a), which were prepared
in width to ensureusing steel molds,
a better transfer hadofa the
thickness
tensile of loading
13 mm and con-the testing machine
from
sisted of a central test region of 80 mm length and 30 mm width (Figure 4a). The ends
to the sample [69]. The tensile tests were conducted at a loading rate of 0.5 mm/min. A
were expanded in width to ensure a better transfer of the tensile loading from the testing
pair
machine oftolinear variable
the sample [69]. displacement
The tensile tests transducers
were conducted (LVDTs) were
at a loading used
rate to record the tensile
of 0.5
deformation
mm/min. A pair ofin eachvariable
linear specimen (Figure
displacement 4b). The(LVDTs)
transducers dumbbell weresamples under tensile loading
used to record
the tensile deformation
generally failed atin the each middle-length
specimen (Figure 4b). The dumbbell
region, and some samples undercracks
micro tensile developed in the
loading generally failed at the middle-length region, and some micro cracks developed in
transverse direction of the sample during the tests, while only one major crack was seen
the transverse direction of the sample during the tests, while only one major crack was
after
seen thethe
after tests.
tests.Figure
Figure 5 showsthe
5 shows thetensile
tensile stress–strain
stress–strain curvescurves of the
of the three three UHPC dumbbell
UHPC
samplessamples
dumbbell reinforced withwith
reinforced one-ply
one-plyCFRP
CFRP grid (T1)oror
grid (T1) two-ply
two-ply CFRP CFRP gridIt (T2). It can be seen
grid (T2).
can
frombe seen from 5
Figure Figure
that5the that tensile
the tensile stress–strain curves
stress–strain curves of FRP grid-UHPC
of FRP samples samples exhibit a
grid-UHPC
exhibit a linear elastic tensile stress–strain behavior
linear elastic tensile stress–strain behavior until failure. until failure.

Figure
Figure5. Stress–strain curves curves
5. Stress–strain of FRP grid-reinforced UHPC dumbbells.
of FRP grid-reinforced UHPC dumbbells.

Normal commercial concrete was adopted to fill the FRP-UHPC tubular columns. The
properties of the filling-in concrete were obtained via compression tests of three standard
concrete cylinders as per ASTM C469 [73] (Table 3).

2.3. FRP Grid and FRP Wrap

The CFRP grid-reinforcing cages were fabricated in the laboratory using the wet layer-
up approach by wrapping a mold with epoxy-infiltrated carbon fiber grid. The dimensions
of the carbon fiber grid are shown in Figure 6a. Tensile tests on three one-ply CFRP grid
coupons (Figure 6b) were conducted to understand their tensile properties. Each end of
the FRP grid coupon was anchored with aluminum plates using a two-part epoxy. A
constant displacement rate of 1.5 mm/min was adopted in the tension tests on the CFRP
grid samples [74]. The failure mode of the CFRP grid coupons was fracture at the mid-length
region, while the resulting tensile stress–strain curves of the CFRP grid coupons (based on
Polymers 2022, 14, 125 8 of 20

the actual nominal cross-sectional area of the FRP in the grid) exhibit a linear behavior until
failure (Figure 6c).

Table 3. Summary of key test results.

0 0 0
Specimen Pmax fcc εcc fco,u fco Pmax,ave εcc,ave
(kN) (MPa) (%) (MPa) (MPa) (kN) (%)
H-L0-0-I 2081.65 138.04 0.305
H-L0-0-II 2121.15 140.66 0.298 165.57 N.A. 2101.40 0.301
H-B1-0-I 1623.45 107.66 0.242
H-B1-0-II 1655.05 109.75 0.249 165.57 N.A. 1639.25 0.245
H-B2-0-I 1283.75 85.13 0.195
H-B2-0-II 1287.70 85.39 0.240 165.57 N.A. 1285.73 0.218
H-A2-0-I 1445.70 95.87 0.225
H-A2-0-II 1477.30 97.96 0.232 165.57 N.A. 1461.50 0.229
H-A1C1-0-I 1425.95 94.56 0.219
H-A1C1-0-II 1552.35 102.94 0.223 165.57 N.A. 1489.15 0.221
S-B2-0-I 2520.10 88.92 0.265
S-B2-0-II 2500.35 88.23 0.265 165.57 42.32 2510.23 0.265
S-A2-0-I 2267.30 80.00 0.249
S-A2-0-II 2306.80 81.40 0.269 165.57 42.32 2287.05 0.259
S-A1C1-0-I 2200.15 77.63 0.187
S-A1C1-0-II 2081.65 73.45 0.216 165.57 42.32 2140.90 0.201
S-B2-1-I 2796.60 98.68 0.279
S-B2-1-II 2725.50 96.17 0.336 165.57 42.32 2761.05 0.307
S-A1C1-1-I 2745.25 96.87 0.349
S-A1C1-1-II 2780.80 98.12 0.376 165.57 42.32 2763.03 0.362
S-A1C1-2-I 3108.65 109.69 0.439
S-A1C1-2-II 3077.05 108.58 0.451 165.57 42.32 3092.85 0.445

Note: Pmax —Peak load of the specimen; 0 —Peak

f cc average stress of the specimen; 0 —Compressive strength
f co,u of
0 —Compressive strength of core concrete; ε —Axial strain at peak load;
UHPC; f co Pmax,ave —Average peak load of
cc
the specimen; ε cc,ave —Average axial strain at peak load of the specimen; N.A.—Not applicable.

The external CFRP wrap was installed via the wet layer-up process. Material prop-
erties of the CFRP wrap were obtained by means of flat-coupon tensile tests as per ASTM
D3039 [75]. The calculation thickness of the CFRP sheet was 0.167 mm/ply and the average
Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
elastic modulus of the FRP wrap was 149.7 GPa, while the CFRP-sheet tensile9 rupture
of 21
strain
was 1.34%.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 6. FRP grid coupons. (a) Dimension of FRP grid (unit: mm); (b) Tensile test set-up; (c) Stress–
Figure 6. FRP grid coupons.
strain curves of FRP (a) Dimension of FRP grid (unit: mm); (b) Tensile test
grid coupons. set-up;
(c) Stress–strain curves of FRP grid coupons.
The external CFRP wrap was installed via the wet layer-up process. Material proper-
ties of the CFRP wrap were obtained by means of flat-coupon tensile tests as per ASTM
D3039 [75]. The calculation thickness of the CFRP sheet was 0.167 mm/ply and the average
elastic modulus of the FRP wrap was 149.7 GPa, while the CFRP-sheet tensile rupture
strain was 1.34%.

3. Compression Tests and Results

Polymers 2022, 14, 125 9 of 20

3. Compression Tests and Results

3.1. Test Set-Up
The compression tests were performed at a displacement rate of 0.4 mm/min. Figure 7
shows the instrumentations for the compression test specimens. Ten strain gauges (SGs)
with a gauge length of 20 mm were installed for each column. Four SGs in the hoop
direction and two in the axial direction were installed on the columns surface at the mid-
height of the column. Four SGs were installed on the CFRP grid in the hoop direction.
Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Four LVDTs were adopted to measure displacements. The figure of test set-up is shown10 of 21
in Figure 8.

Figure
Figure7.7.Locations
LocationsofofSGs
SGsand
andLVDTs
LVDTs for
for test
test columns.
columns.
Figure 7. Locations of SGs and LVDTs for test columns.

Figure 8. Test set-up.

Figure 8. Test set-up.
Figure 8. Test set-up.
3.2. Failure Modes
3.2. Failure
3.2. Failure Modes
Figure Modes
9 shows the typical failure modes of FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns and
Figure 99 shows
Figure shows the
the typical
typical failure
failure modes ofofFRP
FRPgrid-UHPC
grid-UHPC tubulartubular columns
columns and
and
concrete-filled FRP-UHPC tube columns.modes
The FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns exhibited
concrete-filled FRP-UHPC
concrete-filled failure
FRP-UHPC tube
tube columns. The FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns exhibited
concrete-cover before thecolumns.
CFRP grid The FRP
had grid-UHPC
played tubular
a role in columns
restraining theexhibited
dilation
concrete-cover failure
concrete-cover failure before
before the
the CFRP
CFRP grid
grid had
had played
played aa role
roleininrestraining
restrainingthethedilation
dilation
of UHPC. The concrete-cover failure was localized (Figure 9a,b). This localized concrete-
of UHPC.
of UHPC. The
The concrete-cover
concrete-cover failure
failure was localized
was localized (Figure
(Figure 9a,b). This
9a,b).toThis localized
localized concrete-
cover failure resulted in a sudden decrease in axial load, leading a brittle failureconcrete-
of FRP
coverfailure
cover failureresulted
resultedininaasudden
suddendecrease
decrease inaxial
axialload,
load,leading
leadingto toaabrittle
brittlefailure
failureof
ofFRP
FRP
grid-UHPC tubular columns, as can be seeninfrom the axial load–strain curves presented
grid-UHPC tubular columns, as can be seen from the axial load–strain curves presented
in the next section. The internal reinforcing CFRP grid then experienced fracture failure
in the next section. The internal reinforcing CFRP grid then experienced fracture failure
with a substantial decrease in axial load. It can be seen from Figure 9 that the number of
with a substantial decrease in axial load. It can be seen from Figure 9 that the number of
CFRP grid layers and position of the CFRP grids have little influence on the failure mode
CFRP grid layers and position of the CFRP grids have little influence on the failure mode
of the tubular columns.
Polymers 2022, 14, 125 10 of 20

Polymers 2022, 13, xgrid-UHPC

FOR PEER REVIEW
tubular
columns, as can be seen from the axial load–strain curves presented in 1
the next section. The internal reinforcing CFRP grid then experienced fracture failure with
a substantial decrease in axial load. It can be seen from Figure 9 that the number of CFRP
grid layers andfilled
position
FRPofgrid-UHPC
the CFRP grids
tube have littleconfined
columns influencewith
on the
an failure modefailed
FRP jacket of theby FRP ru
tubular columns.and CFRP grid-rupture failure (Figure 10h).

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

Figure
Figure 9. Typical 9. Typical
failure modesfailure modes
of test of test columns.
columns. (a) H-L0-0-II;
(a) H-L0-0-II; (b) H-A2-0-II;
(b) H-A2-0-II; (c) H-B2-0-II;
(c) H-B2-0-
A1C1-0-I;
II; (d) H-A1C1-0-I; (e) S-A2-0-II;
(e) S-A2-0-II; (f) S-B2-0-I;
(f) S-B2-0-I; (g) S-A1C1-0-I;
(g) S-A1C1-0-I; (h) S-A1C1-2-I.
(h) S-A1C1-2-I.

Concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube columns experienced UHPC cracking failure

upon the first peak axial load, then the cracks developed, leading to a substantial decrease
in axial load. The columns failed finally by CFRP grid failure and UHPC crushing failure
(Figures 9e and 10g). Concrete-filled CFRP grid-UHPC tube columns exhibited more severe
concrete-cover failure than CFRP grid-UHPC tubular columns because the rupture of the
CFRP grid led to an impact action to the UHPC cover of the column. The concrete-filled
FRP grid-UHPC tube columns confined with an FRP jacket failed by FRP rupture and CFRP
grid-rupture failure (Figure 10h).

(a) (b)
 (e) (f) (g) (h)
Polymers 2022, 14, 125 11 of 20
Figure 9. Typical failure modes of test columns. (a) H-L0-0-II; (b) H-A2-0-II; (c) H-B2-0-II; (d) H-
A1C1-0-I; (e) S-A2-0-II; (f) S-B2-0-I; (g) S-A1C1-0-I; (h) S-A1C1-2-I.

Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 10. Cont.

Polymers 2022, 14, 125 12 of 20
Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

(i) (j)

(k)
Figure 10. Axial load–axial strain curves of test columns. (a) H-L0-0; (b) H-A2-0; (c) H-B1-0-; (d) H-
Figure 10. (e)Axial
B2-0-; load–axial
H-A1C1-0-; strain
(f) S-A2-0-; curves(h)
(g) S-B2-0-; ofS-A1C1-0-;
test columns. (a) (j)
(i) S-B2-1-; H-L0-0; (b)(k)H-A2-0;
S-A1C1-1-; (c) H-B1-0-;
S-A1C1-2-.
(d) H-B2-0-; (e) H-A1C1-0-; (f) S-A2-0-; (g) S-B2-0-; (h) S-A1C1-0-; (i) S-B2-1-; (j) S-A1C1-1-;
3.3. Axial Load–Strain Behavior of FRP Grid-UHPC Tubular Columns and Concrete-Filled
(k) S-A1C1-2-.
FRP-UHPC Tube Columns
3.3. AxialFigure
Load–Strain
10 showsBehavior
the axial of FRP Grid-UHPC
load–strain Tubular Columns
curves of FRP-UHPC and Concrete-Filled
tubular columns and con-
FRP-UHPC Tube
crete-filled Columns
FRP grid-UHPC tube columns. The axial strains are based on recorded data
from
Figure mid-height
10 shows LVDTs
the at the initial
axial load stage,
load–strain while of
curves they are based ontubular
FRP-UHPC the full-height
columns and
LVDTs afterFRP
concrete-filled the peak axial load because
grid-UHPC the cracking
tube columns. Thefailure
axialof UHPC
strainsmay arelead to move-
based on recorded
ments of the mid-height LVDTs and thus the axial strains based on the mid-height LVDTs
data from mid-height LVDTs at the initial load stage, while they are based on the full-
after the peak axial load are not necessarily accurate. The UHPC tubular column without
height LVDTs after the peak axial load because the cracking failure of UHPC may lead to
reinforcement and FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns exhibit a linear axial load–strain be-
movements of the
havior until thepeak
mid-height LVDTs
load is reached and tube
(UHPC thusfailure).
the axialThe strains based on
failure happened at the mid-height
an axial
LVDTs after
strain the peak
of around axial
0.20%, loadis are
which evennot necessarily
smaller than that accurate.
of the UHPC The UHPC
ultimate tubular
axial strain column
without reinforcement
(0.34%). The UHPC was and FRP
quite grid-UHPC
brittle such that the tubular columns curves
axial load–strain exhibit a linear
exhibit axial load–
a steep
straindegradation in axial
behavior until theload
peakupon UHPC
load failure. (UHPC
is reached It can betube
seen failure).
from Figure The10failure
that thehappened
in- at
volvement
an axial of the
strain of CFRP0.20%,
around grid even led to
which is aeven
decrease in thethan
smaller peakthat
axialofload
the because
UHPC of the
ultimate axial
in-activation of CFRP grid confinement upon failure and the decrease in the integrity of
strain (0.34%). The UHPC was quite brittle such that the axial load–strain curves exhibit
the UHPC shell due to the involvement of the CFRP grid. Furthermore, it is found that the
a steep
twodegradation
curves from a in axial
pair load upon
of nominal UHPC
identical failure.
specimens It can had
generally be seen from
similar peakFigure
axial 10 that
the involvement of the CFRP
loads, demonstrating grid even
the reliability of theled testto a decrease in the peak axial load because of
results.
the in-activation
Figure 10bofshow
CFRP thegrid
axialconfinement
load–strain curves upon failure and the
of concrete-filled FRPdecrease
grid-UHPC in tube
the integrity
of thecolumns
UHPCwith shelldifferent
due toparameters.
the involvementIt can beof seen
thethat
CFRPthe axial
grid.load–strain
Furthermore, curvesitofisthe
found that
the two curves from a pair of nominal identical specimens generally had similar peak axial
loads, demonstrating the reliability of the test results.
Figure 10b show the axial load–strain curves of concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube
columns with different parameters. It can be seen that the axial load–strain curves of the
former exhibit a first, linear elastic ascending portion, a second, sharp descending portion,
followed by a post-peak plateau portion. The second sharp descending in axial load was
due to the UHPC cover failure. The axial load–strain curves terminated when the CFRP
grid experienced final fracture failure. The location of the CFRP grid in case of (A1C1)
Polymers 2022, 14, 125 13 of 20

leads to a decreased peak axial load. The variation of the location of the CFRP grid leads to
slightly different slopes of the post-peak plateau portions, indicating that the confinement
from the CFRP grid plays an insignificant role on the axial load–strain behavior of the
concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube columns.
Figure 10c shows the effect of steel fibers on the axial load–strain curves of FRP-
wrapped FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns. It can be seen that the post-peak axial load’s
decrease in FRP-wrapped concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube columns is effectively allevi-
ated by the existence of the CFRP wrap. It is clear that the FRP-UHPC tubular columns
confined with FRP wrap exhibit a higher peak axial load, while the peak axial load is
dependent on the thickness of the FRP jacket. This experimental observation concurs
well with the finding reported by Tian et al. [5]. The post-peak descending portion of the
FRP-wrapped concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube columns is independent of the thickness
of the FRP wrap.

3.4. Effects of the Position of the CFRP Grids and the CFRP Grid Thickness
Compared with the hollow UHPC tubular column without CFRP grid, the peak load
of H-B2-0 is 33.8% lower than that of H-L0-0, while the peak axial load of H-A1C1-0 was
15.8% higher than that of H-B2-0, and the peak axial load of H-A2-0 is 13.7% higher than
that of H-B2-0. The arrangement of CFRP grids in the case of B2 had a more detrimental
effect than the arrangement of CFRP grids in the case of A1C1 in the peak axial load of
the FRP grid-UHPC tubular column. This is because the integrity of CFRP grid-UHPC
tubular columns can be maintained and fewer defects are introduced in the column in
cases where the CFRP grid-reinforcing cages are arranged in separated locations in the
member (i.e., A1C1). Therefore, arrangement of CFRP grids in separated positions is
recommended for CFRP grid-UHPC tubular columns. In real applications, the thickness of
the FRP grid-reinforced UHPC tube is relatively large, and thus the arrangement of CFRP
grids in separated positions can be easily implemented.
The axial load–strain curves of the solid concrete-filled CFRP grid-UHPC tubular
columns with different CFRP grid positions are shown in Figure 11b,c. The peak axial load
of S-A1C1-0 is 14.7% lower than that of S-B2-0, and the peak axial load of S-A2-0 is 8.9%
lower than that of S-B2-0. For concrete-filled CFRP grid-UHPC tubular columns wrapped
with a one-ply CFRP wrap, the peak axial load difference between S-B2-1 and S-A1C1-1 is
small (i.e., 2kN). Furthermore, the influence of the CFRP grid position on the peak axial
load of FRP-confined concrete-filled CFRP grid-UHPC tubular columns can be ignored.
The above discussion implies that the CFRP grid position has a small effect on the peak
axial load of the solid concrete-filled CFRP grid-UHPC tube columns, which is different to
the CFRP grid-UHPC tubular columns. This is because the axial load-bearing capacity of
the solid concrete-filled CFRP grid-UHPC tube columns is not only dependent on the CFRP
grid-UHPC shell, but also the in-filled concrete. The initial stiffness of the axial load–strain
curves of all the columns is independent of the test parameters.
Figure 12 shows that axial load–strain curves of the three groups of CFRP grid-UHPC
tubular columns with different numbers of CFRP grid layers. The peak axial load of H-B1-0
is 22.0% lower than that of H-L0-0, the peak axial load of H-B2-0 is 38.8% lower than that of
H-L0-0, and the peak axial load of H-B2-0 was 21.6% lower than that of H-B1-0. It can be
seen that with an increase in the number of the CFRP grid layers, the peak axial load of the
CFRP grid-UHPC tubular column decreases, which is because the CFRP grid is a defect
for the axial loaded CFRP grid-UHPC tubular columns in that the FRP grid confinement
is not activated, while the situation could be different if the columns are under eccentric
compression or bending.
The thickness of the external CFRP wrap has a significant influence on the peak axial
load of the columns (Figure 13): the peak axial load of S-B2-1 is 10% higher than that of
S-B2-0, the peak axial load of S-A1C1-1 is 29.1% higher than that of S-A1C1-0, and the peak
axial load of S-A1C1-2 is 11.9% higher than that of S-A1C1-1.
Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

The thickness of the external CFRP wrap has a significant influence on the peak axial
load of
Thethe columnsof(Figure
thickness 13): the
the external peakwrap
CFRP axialhas
loada of S-B2-1 isinfluence
significant 10% higher
onthan that of
the peak S-
Polymers 2022, 14, 125 14axial
of 20
B2-0,
load ofthethe
peak axial load
columns of S-A1C1-1
(Figure is 29.1%
13): the peak axialhigher
load ofthan thatisof
S-B2-1 10%S-A1C1-0, and that
higher than the peak
of S-
axial load of S-A1C1-2 is 11.9% higher than that of S-A1C1-1.
B2-0, the peak axial load of S-A1C1-1 is 29.1% higher than that of S-A1C1-0, and the peak
axial load of S-A1C1-2 is 11.9% higher than that of S-A1C1-1.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 11. Effect of CFRP grid positioning
(c) on axial load–strain curves. (a) FRP grid-UHPC tubular
Figure 11. Effect of CFRP grid positioning on axial load–strain curves. (a) FRP grid-UHPC tubular
columns; (b) Concrete-filled FRP-grid UHPC tube columns; (c) CFRP-confined concrete-filled FRP-
Figure 11.(b)
columns; Effect of CFRP grid
Concrete-filled positioning
FRP-grid UHPC ontube
axialcolumns;
load–strain curves. (a) FRP concrete-filled
(c) CFRP-confined grid-UHPC tubular
FRP-
grid UHPC tube columns.
columns; (b) Concrete-filled
grid UHPC tube columns. FRP-grid UHPC tube columns; (c) CFRP-confined concrete-filled FRP-
grid UHPC tube columns.

Figure 12. Effect of number of FRP grid layers on the axial load–strain curves.
Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21

Polymers 2022, 14, 125 15 of 20

Figure 12. Effect of number of FRP grid layers on the axial load–strain curves.

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Effect of number of the external CFRP wrap. (a) Position B; (b) Position AC.
Figure 13. Effect of number of the external CFRP wrap. (a) Position B; (b) Position AC.

3.5. Dilation
3.5. Dilation Behavior
Behavior
Theaxial
The axialload–hoop
load–hoopstrain straincurves
curves of of
testtest specimens
specimens (based
(based on SGs
on SGs installed
installed on the onFRP the
FRP grid or the FRP wrap) are given in Figures 14–16. The
grid or the FRP wrap) are given in Figures 14–16. The results show that the hoop strains in results show that the hoop
strains
FRP in FRP grid-UHPC
grid-UHPC tubular columnstubularwere columnsquitewere small quite small0.0004),
(around (aroundand 0.0004), and the dif-
the difference in
ference
hoop in hoop
strains strainsaxial
at a given at aload
given axial load
between FRP between
grid-UHPC FRPtubular
grid-UHPCcolumns tubular columns
with different
withlocations
grid differentisgrid locations
small (Figureis14). small (Figure 14).the
Furthermore, Furthermore,
effect of thethe effect of
position of the
the CFRP
position grid of
the CFRP
position is grid position
negligible is negligible
because the FRPbecause
grid-UHPC the FRP grid-UHPC
tubular columnstubularfailed atcolumns
a smallfailedaxial
at a small
strain axial strain
of around 0.003, of aroundstage
at which 0.003,theatconfinement
which stageofthe theconfinement
CFRP grid was of thenotCFRP grid
activated.
was Figure
not activated.
14b shows the effect of CFRP grid positioning on axial load–hoop strain curves
of theFigure 14b showsFRP-grid
concrete-filled the effect UHPC
of CFRPtube gridcolumns.
positioning It on
canaxial load–hoopthat
be observed strain
thecurves
hoop
of theofconcrete-filled
strain S-B2-0 is smaller FRP-grid
than thatUHPC tube columns.
of S-A2-0 at a givenItaxialcanload,
be observed
and the hoopthat the hoop
strain of
strain of S-B2-0
S-A1C1-0 is betweenis smaller
thosethan thatformers.
of the of S-A2-0 Forat the
a given axial load, and
concrete-filled the hoop
FRP-grid UHPC straintube of
S-A1C1-0wrapped
columns is between withthose
CFRP, of the
thecurves
formers. Fortwo
of the the pairs
concrete-filled
of specimens FRP-grid
basicallyUHPC coincidetube
columns
in the early wrapped
stage ofwith CFRP,
loading. Thetheeffect
curves of of
thethe two pairs
number of specimens
of CFRP grid layersbasically
has little coincide
effect
on the early
in the axial load–hoop
stage of loading. strainThecurveseffectof of
thethe FRP-grid
numberUHPC of CFRP tubular columns
grid layers has(Figure 15).
little effect
It
oncanthebe seen
axial from Figures
load–hoop strain14curves
and 15 ofthat the hoop UHPC
the FRP-grid strainstubular
in the CFRP
columns grid(Figure
are small 15).
(generally
It can be seen around from 800 µε when
Figures 14 the
andaxial15 thatstraintheapproached
hoop strains0.3%). in theThis
CFRP suggests
grid are that the
small
confinement
(generally around from the 800CFRP𝜇𝜀 when grid the
is insignificant
axial strain when the concrete-filled
approached FRP grid-UHPC
0.3%). This suggests that the
tubular
confinement column from failure
the CFRPinitiated,
grid isexplaining
insignificant why whenthe the
CFRP grid alone (i.e.,
concrete-filled FRP without
grid-UHPC an
external FRP jacket) is insufficient in enhancing the strength
tubular column failure initiated, explaining why the CFRP grid alone (i.e, without an ex- and deformation capacity of
concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns.
ternal FRP jacket) is insufficient in enhancing the strength and deformation capacity of
For specimens
concrete-filled FRP wrapped
grid-UHPC with CFRPcolumns.
tubular wrap with different thicknesses, the load–hoop
strainFor curves basically
specimens coincide
wrapped in the
with CFRP early stage
wrap of loading.
with differentFor the specimen
thicknesses, S-A1C1-0
the load–hoop
without CFRPbasically
strain curves wrap, thecoincide
maximum hoop
in the strain
early stageis only 0.050, which
of loading. For theisspecimen
much smaller S-A1C1-0than
that of S-A1C1-1. The ultimate hoop strains in CFRP wrap
without CFRP wrap, the maximum hoop strain is only 0.050, which is much smaller than are generally larger than those
in theofCFRP
that S-A1C1-1.grid, Theindicating
ultimate that
hoopthestrains
CFRP wrap in CFRP confinement is considerable
wrap are generally for CFRP-
larger than those
confined concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns.
in the CFRP grid, indicating that the CFRP wrap confinement is considerable for CFRP- Furthermore, an increase in
the CFRP wrap thickness leads to an increase in the peak
confined concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns. Furthermore, an increase in the axial load of the CFRP-confined
concrete-filled
CFRP wrap thickness FRP grid-UHPCleads to tubular
an increasecolumns,in the that is, the
peak hoop
axial loadstrain
of thein the CFRP wrap
CFRP-confined
is smaller for the two-ply CFRP-confined specimen than that
concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns, that is, the hoop strain in the CFRP wrap of the one-ply CFRP-confined
specimen
is smalleratfor a given axial load
the two-ply (Figure 16). specimen than that of the one-ply CFRP-con-
CFRP-confined
fined specimen at a given axial load (Figure 16).
Polymers 2022,
Polymers 2022, 14,
13, 125
x FOR PEER REVIEW 17
16 of 21
of 20
Polymers 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)
(c)
Figure 14.
Figure 14. Effect
Effect of
of FRP
FRP grid
grid positioning
positioning on
on axial
axial load–hoop
load–hoop strain
strain curves
curves of
of the
the specimens.
specimens. (a)
(a) FRP
FRP
Figure 14. Effect
grid-UHPC of FRP
tubular grid positioning
columns; on axialFRP-grid
(b) Concrete-filled load–hoop straintube
UHPC curves of the (c)
columns; specimens. (a) FRP
CFRP-confined
grid-UHPC tubular columns; (b) Concrete-filled FRP-grid UHPC tube columns; (c) CFRP-confined
grid-UHPC tubular
concrete-filled columns; (b)
FRP grid-UHPC Concrete-filled
tube columns. FRP-grid UHPC tube columns; (c) CFRP-confined
concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube columns.
concrete-filled FRP grid-UHPC tube columns.

Figure 15. Effect of number of FRP grid layers on axial load–hoop strain curves of FRP grid-UHPC
Figure15.
tubular
Figure 15. Effectof
columns.
Effect ofnumber
numberof
ofFRP
FRPgrid
gridlayers
layerson
onaxial
axialload–hoop
load–hoopstrain
straincurves
curvesof
ofFRP
FRPgrid-UHPC
grid-UHPC
tubular columns.
tubular columns.
Polymers 2022,
2022, 14,
13, 125
x FOR PEER REVIEW 17of
18 of 20
21

(a) (b)
Figure 16.
Figure 16. Effect of number
Effect of number of
of the
the FRP
FRP layers
layers on
on axial
axial load–hoop
load–hoop strain
strain curves
curves of
of CFRP-confined
CFRP-confined
concrete-filled FRP-grid UHPC tube columns. (a) Position B; (b) Position AC.
concrete-filled FRP-grid UHPC tube columns. (a) Position B; (b) Position AC.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
A novel form of thin-walled UHPC tubular columns that is reinforced with FRP grid
A novel form of thin-walled UHPC tubular columns that is reinforced with FRP grid
(referred to as
(referred to as FRP
FRP grid-UHPC
grid-UHPC tubular
tubular columns)
columns) has
has been
been developed
developed and and reported
reported in
in this
this
paper. Axial-compression
paper. Axial-compression test test results
results on
on FRP
FRP grid-UHPC
grid-UHPC tubular
tubular columns
columns and
and concrete-
concrete-
filled FRP grid-UHPC tube columns have been reported. The test results
filled FRP grid-UHPC tube columns have been reported. The test results confirmed the confirmed the
viability of the proposed system. Based on the test results and the discussions presented
viability of the proposed system. Based on the test results and the discussions presented in
in this
this paper,
paper, thethe following
following conclusions
conclusions areare drawn:
drawn:
(1) The
(1) The FRP
FRP grid-UHPC
grid-UHPC tubular tubular columns
columns exhibited
exhibited localized
localized concrete-cover failure. The
concrete-cover failure. The
FRP grid position and thickness have little influence on the
FRP grid position and thickness have little influence on the failure mode of the failure mode of the tub-
tubular
ular columns.
columns. Concrete-filled
Concrete-filled FRP-UHPC
FRP-UHPC tubetube columns
columns failed
failed by the
by the CFRPCFRPgridgrid frac-
fracture
ture and the UHPC crushing failure. The concrete-filled
and the UHPC crushing failure. The concrete-filled FRP-UHPC tube columns with an FRP-UHPC tube columns
with an FRPfailed
FRP jacket jacketbyfailed by FRPand
FRP jacket jacket
CFRP andgrid
CFRP grid rupture.
rupture.
(2) The FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns exhibite
(2) The FRP grid-UHPC tubular columns exhibite a linear axial a linear axialload–strain
load–strainbehavior
behavioruntilun-
til the peak load was reached (UHPC tube failure). The failure
the peak load was reached (UHPC tube failure). The failure happened at an axial happened at an axial
strain
strain ofof around
around 0.20%,
0.20%, which
which is smaller than that of the UHPC ultimate axial strain.
(3) The
The arrangement
arrangementofoftwo-ply two-plyCFRP CFRPgridsgridshas a more
has a more detrimental
detrimental effect than
effect thanthe the
ar-
rangement
arrangement of of
CFRPCFRP grids
gridsininthe
thecase
caseofofseparated
separatedFRP FRPgrids
gridsin inthe
the peak
peak axial
axial load of
the
the FRP grid-UHPC
grid-UHPCtubular tubularcolumn,
column,thus thusthethe arrangement
arrangement of CFRP
of CFRP grids
grids in sepa-
in separated
rated positions
positions is recommended
is recommended for CFRPfor CFRP
grid-UHPCgrid-UHPC
tubulartubular
columns.columns.
(4) The load–straincurves
The axial load–strain curvesofofconcrete-filled
concrete-filled FRP-UHPC
FRP-UHPC tubetube columns
columns exhibite
exhibite a
a first,
first,
linearlinear
elasticelastic ascending
ascending portion,
portion, and aand a second,
second, sharpsharp descending
descending portion,
portion, followedfol-
lowed by a post-peak
by a post-peak plateauplateau
portion. portion.
The CFRP The CFRP grid location
grid location and thickness
and thickness have ahavesmalla
influence
small on theon
influence first
thepeak
first strength of the of
peak strength columns.
the columns.
(5) The
The confinement
confinement from from thethe external
external FRP
FRP jacket
jacket is efficient in enhancing the strength
and deformation
and deformation capacity
capacity of of concrete-filled
concrete-filled FRP-UHPC tubular columns.
The high-performance
high-performanceFRP FRPgrid-UHPC
grid-UHPCtubular members
tubular members could be be
could used for for
used permanent
perma-
formwork/strengthening
nent formwork/strengthening jackets of RCof
jackets columns. The amount
RC columns. of FRPofreinforcement,
The amount effects
FRP reinforcement,
of typesofoftypes
effects fibers,
of and effects
fibers, and of the external
effects confinement
of the external stiffnessstiffness
confinement on performance of FRP
on performance
grid-UHPC tubulartubular
of FRP grid-UHPC members under compression
members need to need
under compression be further investigated.
to be further investigated.

Author
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, supervision,
Contributions: Conceptualization, supervision, project
project administration,
administration, funding
funding acquisition,
acquisition,
original
original draft
draftpreparation,
preparation,writing—review
writing—review and editing,
and J.Z.;J.Z.;
editing, Investigation, T.L.T.L.
Investigation, All authors have have
All authors read
and
readagreed to thetopublished
and agreed version
the published of theofmanuscript.
version the manuscript.
This study
Funding: This study was
was founded
founded by
by the Guangzhou
Guangzhou Science
Science and
and Technology
Technology Department
Department (No.
(No.
201904010163),
201904010163), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong
Guangdong Province
Province (No.
(No. 2019A1515011637,
2019A1515011637,
2021A0505060008), and the University of Macau (File no. UMMTP2020-MYSP-003), as well as the
Polymers 2022, 14, 125 18 of 20

2021A0505060008), and the University of Macau (File no. UMMTP2020-MYSP-003), as well as the
Association for Promotion of Science and Technology of Macau and the Office of China National
Postdoctoral Council (File no. AM2020002).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear
in the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wei, C.C. Conceptual weather environmental forecasting system for identifying potential failure of under-construction structures
during typhoons. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2017, 168, 48–59. [CrossRef]
2. Li, J.Q.; Wu, Z.M.; Shi, C.J.; Yuan, Q.; Zhang, Z.H. Durability of ultra-high performance concrete—A review. Constr. Build. Mater.
2020, 255, 119296. [CrossRef]
3. Shi, C.; Wu, Z.; Xiao, J.; Wang, D.; Huang, Z.; Fang, Z. A review on ultra high performance concrete: Part I. Raw materials and
mixture design. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 741–751. [CrossRef]
4. Dong, Z.; Wu, G.; Zhao, X.L.; Zhu, H.; Shao, X. Behaviors of hybrid beams composed of seawater sea-sand concrete (SWSSC) and
a prefabricated UHPC shell reinforced with FRP bars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 213, 32–42. [CrossRef]
5. Tian, H.W.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wei, Y. Axial behavior of reinforced concrete column with ultra-high performance concrete
stay-in-place formwork. Eng. Struct. 2020, 210, 110403. [CrossRef]
6. Huang, B.T.; Dai, J.G.; Wen, K.F.; Zhu, J.X.; Shah, S.P. Flexural performance of UHPC–concrete–ECC composite member reinforced
with perforated steel plates. J. Struct. Eng. 2021, 147, 04021065. [CrossRef]
7. Lin, Y.; Chen, Z.X.; Guan, D.Z.; Guo, Z.X. Experimental study on interior precast concrete beam-column connections with UHPC
core shells. Structures 2021, 32, 1103–1114. [CrossRef]
8. Li, Q.H.; Huang, B.T.; Xu, S.L. Development of assembled permanent formwork using ultra high toughness cementitious
composites. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2016, 19, 1142–1152. [CrossRef]
9. Shan, B.; Lai, D.D.; Xiao, Y.; Luo, X.B. Experimental research on concrete-filled RPC tubes under axial compression load. Eng.
Struct. 2018, 155, 358–370. [CrossRef]
10. Hadi, M.N.S.; Algburi, A.H.M.; Sheikh, M.N.; Carrigan, A.T. Axial and flexural behaviour of circular reinforced concrete
columns strengthened with reactive powder concrete jacket and fibre reinforced polymer wrapping. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018,
172, 717–727. [CrossRef]
11. Teng, J.G.; Xiang, Y.; Yu, T.; Fang, Z. Development and mechanical behaviour of ultra-high-performance seawater sea-sand
concrete. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2019, 22, 3100–3120. [CrossRef]
12. Wu, Z.M.; Shi, C.J.; Khayat, K.H. Investigation of mechanical properties and shrinkage of ultra-high performance concrete:
Influence of steel fiber content and shape. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 174, 107021. [CrossRef]
13. Liu, Y.W.; Zhang, Z.H.; Shi, C.J.; Zhu, D.J.; Li, N.; Deng, Y.L. Development of ultra-high performance geopolymer concrete
(UHPGC): Influence of steel fiber on mechanical properties. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 112, 103670. [CrossRef]
14. Li, W.G.; Huang, Z.Y.; Hu, G.Q.; Duan, W.H.; Shah, S.P. Early-age shrinkage development of ultra-high-performance concrete
under heat curing treatment. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 131, 767–774. [CrossRef]
15. Yu, K.Q.; Yu, J.T.; Dai, J.G.; Lu, Z.D.; Shah, S.P. Development of ultra-high performance engineered cementitious composites
using polyethylene (PE) fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 158, 217–227. [CrossRef]
16. Wille, K.; Boisvert-Cotulio, C. Material efficiency in the design of ultra-high-performance concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015,
86, 33–43. [CrossRef]
17. Miletić, M.; Kumar, L.M.; Arns, J.Y.; Agarwal, A.; Foster, S.J.; Arns, C.; Perić, D. Gradient-based fibre detection method on 3D
micro-CT tomographic image for defining fibre orientation bias in ultra-high-performance concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2020,
129, 105962. [CrossRef]
18. Teng, L.; Meng, W.; Khayat, K.H. Rheology control of ultra-high-performance concrete made with different fiber contents. Cem.
Concr. Res. 2020, 138, 106222. [CrossRef]
19. Liao, J.J.; Yang, K.Y.; Zeng, J.J.; Quach, W.M.; Ye, Y.Y.; Zhang, L.H. Compressive behavior of FRP-confined ultra-high performance
concrete (UHPC) in circular columns. Eng. Struct. 2021, 249, 113246. [CrossRef]
20. JSCE. Recommendations for Design and Construction of Ultra High Strength Fiber Reinforced Concrete Structures (Draft); JSCE Guidelines
for Concrete No. 9; Japan Society of Civil Engineers: Tokyo, Japan, 2006.
21. Bertola, N.; Schittz, P.; Denaria, E.; Brühwiler, E. A Review of the Use of UHPFRC in Bridge Rehabilitation and New Construction
in Switzerland. Front. Built Environ. 2021, 7, 769686. [CrossRef]
22. Yoo, D.Y.; Banthia, N. Mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete: A review. Cem. Concr. Compos.
2016, 73, 267–280. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022, 14, 125 19 of 20

23. Li, J.; Wu, C.Q.; Hao, H. An experimental and numerical study of reinforced ultra-high performance concrete slabs under blast
loads. Mater. Des. 2015, 82, 64–76. [CrossRef]
24. Wang, W.Q.; Wu, C.Q.; Liu, Z.X.; Zeng, J.J. Experimental investigation on the hybrid FRP-UHPC-steel double-skin tubular
columns under lateral impact loading. J. Compos. Constr. 2020, 24, 04020041. [CrossRef]
25. Wei, J.; Li, J.; Wu, C.Q. Behaviour of hollow-core and steel wire mesh reinforced ultra-high performance concrete columns under
lateral impact loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2020, 146, 103726. [CrossRef]
26. Wang, Y.; Shao, X.; Chen, J.; Cao, J.; Deng, S. UHPC-based strengthening technique for orthotropic steel decks with significant
fatigue cracking issues. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2021, 176, 106393. [CrossRef]
27. Huang, B.T.; Yu, J.; Wu, J.Q.; Dai, J.G.; Leung, C.K.Y. Seawater sea-sand Engineered Cementitious Composites (SS-ECC) for
marine and coastal applications. Compos. Commun. 2020, 20, 100353. [CrossRef]
28. Chen, X.; Zhuge, Y.; Al-Gemeel, A.N.; Xiong, Z.M. Compressive behaviour of concrete column confined with basalt textile
reinforced ECC. Eng. Struct. 2021, 243, 112651. [CrossRef]
29. Zhou, J.K.; Lin, W.K.; Guo, S.X.; Zeng, J.J.; Bai, Y.L. Behavior of FRP-confined FRP spiral reinforced concrete square columns
(FCFRCs) under axial compression. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 45, 103452. [CrossRef]
30. Liao, J.J.; Zeng, J.J.; Bai, Y.L.; Zhang, L.H. Bond strength of GFRP bars to high strength and ultra-high strength fiber reinforced
seawater sea-sand concrete (SSC). Compos. Struct. 2022, 281, 115013. [CrossRef]
31. Wei, Y.; Bai, J.W.; Zhang, Y.R.; Miao, K.T.; Zheng, K.Q. Compressive performance of high-strength seawater and sea sand concrete
filled circular FRP-steel composite tube columns. Eng. Struct. 2021, 240, 112357. [CrossRef]
32. Lai, M.H.; Liang, Y.W.; Wang, Q.; Ren, F.M.; Chen, M.T.; Ho, J.C.M. A stress-path dependent stress-strain model for FRP-confined
concrete. Eng. Struct. 2020, 203, 109824. [CrossRef]
33. Zhang, Y.R.; Wei, Y.; Bai, J.W.; Wu, G.; Dong, Z.Q. A novel seawater and sea sand concrete filled FRP-carbon steel composite tube
column: Concept and behavior. Compos. Struct. 2020, 246, 112421. [CrossRef]
34. Guo, Y.C.; Ye, Y.Y.; Lin, G.; Lv, J.F.; Bai, Y.L.; Zeng, J.J. Effective usage of high strength Steel tubes: Axial compressive behavior of
hybrid FRP-concrete-steel solid columns. Thin-Walled Struct. 2020, 154, 106796. [CrossRef]
35. Ye, Y.Y.; Liang, S.D.; Feng, P.; Zeng, J.J. Recyclable LRS FRP composites for engineering structures: Current status and future
opportunities. Compos. Part B Eng. 2021, 212, 108689. [CrossRef]
36. El-Nemr, A.; Ahmed, E.A.; El-Safty, A.; Benmokrane, B. Evaluation of the flexural strength and serviceability of concrete beams
reinforced with different types of GFRP bars. Eng. Struct. 2018, 173, 606–619. [CrossRef]
37. Guo, Y.C.; Xiao, S.H.; Luo, J.W.; Ye, Y.Y.; Zeng, J.J. Confined concrete in square columns partially wrapped with FRP strips: Axial
compressive behavior and strain distributions by particle image velocimetry sensing technique. Sensors 2018, 12, 4118. [CrossRef]
38. Ren, F.M.; Liang, Y.W.; Ho, J.C.M.; Lai, M.H. Behaviour of FRP tube-concrete-encased steel composite columns. Compos. Struct.
2020, 241, 112139. [CrossRef]
39. Zeng, J.J.; Chen, S.P.; Zhuge, Y.; Gao, W.Y.; Duan, Z.J.; Guo, Y.C. Three-dimensional finite element modeling and theoretical
analysis of concrete confined with FRP rings. Eng. Struct. 2021, 234, 111966. [CrossRef]
40. Al Ajarmeh, O.S.; Manaloa, A.C.; Benmokraneb, B.; Karunasenaa, K.; Ferdousa, W.; Mendisc, P. Hollow concrete columns: Review
of structural behavior and new designs using GFRP reinforcement. Eng. Struct. 2020, 203, 109829. [CrossRef]
41. Naser, M.Z.; Hawileh, R.A.; Abdalla, J.A. Fiber-reinforced polymer composites in strengthening reinforced concrete structures: A
critical review. Eng. Struct. 2019, 198, 109542. [CrossRef]
42. Mohamed, K.A.; Abdalla, J.; Hawileh, R.A. RC columns strengthened with NSM-CFRP strips and CFRP wraps under axial and
uniaxial bending: Experimental investigation and capacity models. Materials 2020, 13, 4350. [CrossRef]
43. Abokwiek, R.A.; Abdalla, J.; Hawileh, R.A.; El Maaddawy, T. Experimental and analytical investigations of the use of groove-epoxy
anchorage system for shear strengthening of RC beams using CFRP laminates. J. Compos. Constr. 2021, 25, 04021009. [CrossRef]
44. Zeng, J.J.; Zheng, Y.W.; Liu, F.; Guo, Y.C.; Hou, C. Behavior of FRP ring-confined CFSTs under axial compression. Compos. Struct.
2021, 257, 113166. [CrossRef]
45. Ye, Y.Y.; Zhuge, Y.; Smith, S.T.; Zeng, J.J.; Bai, Y.L. Behavior of GFRP-RC Columns under axial compression: Assessment of
existing models and a new axial load-strain model. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 47, 103782. [CrossRef]
46. Kara, I.F.; Ashour, A.F.; Dundar, C. Deflection of concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars. Compos. Part B Eng. 2013,
44, 375–384. [CrossRef]
47. Zeng, J.J.; Gao, W.Y.; Duan, Z.J.; Guo, Y.C.; Bai, Y.L.; Ouyang, L.J. Axial compressive behavior of polyethylene terephthalate/carbon
FRP-confined seawater sea-sand concrete in circular columns. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 234, 117383. [CrossRef]
48. Zeng, J.J.; Ye, Y.Y.; Quach, W.M.; Lin, G.; Zhuge, Y.; Zhou, J.K. Compressive and transverse shear behaviour of novel FRP-UHPC
hybrid bars. Compos. Struct. 2022, 281, 115001. [CrossRef]
49. Zhou, L.L.; Guo, S.C.; Zhu, D.J. Mechanical behavior and durability of coral aggregate concrete and bonding performance with
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 289, 125652. [CrossRef]
50. Trapko, T.; Urbańska, D.; Kamiński, M. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams with PBO-FRCM composites. Compos.
Part B Eng. 2015, 80, 63–72. [CrossRef]
51. Aljazaeri, Z.R.; Myers, J.J. Strengthening of reinforced-concrete beams in shear with a fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix. J.
Compos. Constr. 2017, 21, 04017041. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022, 14, 125 20 of 20

52. Al-Gemeel, A.N.; Zhuge, Y. Using textile reinforced engineered cementitious composite for concrete columns confinement.
Compos. Struct. 2019, 210, 695–706. [CrossRef]
53. Jiang, J.F.; Jiang, C.; Li, B.B.; Feng, P. Bond behavior of basalt textile meshes in ultra-high ductility cementitious composites.
Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 174, 107022. [CrossRef]
54. Zheng, A.H.; Liu, Z.Z.; Li, F.P.; Li, S. Experimental investigation of corrosion-damaged RC beams strengthened in flexure with
FRP grid-reinforced ECC matrix composites. Eng. Struct. 2021, 244, 112779. [CrossRef]
55. Yang, X.; Gao, W.Y.; Dai, J.G.; Lu, Z.D. Shear strengthening of RC beams with FRP grid-reinforced ECC matrix. Compos. Struct.
2020, 241, 112120. [CrossRef]
56. Arboleda, D.; Carozzi, F.G.; Nanni, A.; Poggi, C. Testing procedures for the uniaxial tensile characterization of fabric-reinforced
cementitious matrix composites. J. Compos. Constr. 2016, 20, 04015063. [CrossRef]
57. Pan, B.Z.; Liu, F.; Zhuge, Y.; Zeng, J.J.; Liao, J.J. ECC/UHPFRCC with and without FRP reinforcement for structural strengthen-
ing/repairing: A state-of-the-art review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 315, 125824. [CrossRef]
58. Al-Gemeel, A.N.; Zhuge, Y. Experimental investigation of textile reinforced engineered cementitious composite (ECC) for square
concrete column confinement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 174, 594–602. [CrossRef]
59. D’Antino, T.; Focacci, F.; Sneed, L.H.; Pellegrino, C. Shear strength model for RC beams with U-wrapped FRCM composites. J.
Compos. Constr. 2020, 24, 04019057. [CrossRef]
60. Koutas, L.N.; Tetta, Z.; Bournas, D.A.; Triantafillou, T.C. Strengthening of concrete structures with textile reinforced mortars:
State-of-the-art review. J. Compos. Constr. 2019, 23, 03118001. [CrossRef]
61. Raoof, S.M.; Koutas, L.N.; Bournas, D.A. Bond between textile-reinforced mortar (TRM) and concrete substrates: Experimental
investigation. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 98, 350–361. [CrossRef]
62. Zheng, Y.Z.; Wang, W.W.; Mosalam, K.M.; Zhu, Z.F. Mechanical behavior of ultra-high toughness cementitious composite
strengthened with fiber reinforced polymer grid. Compos. Struct. 2018, 184, 1–10. [CrossRef]
63. Yuan, W.Y.; Han, Q.; Bai, Y.L.; Du, X.L.; Yan, Z.W. Compressive behavior and modelling of engineered cementitious composite
(ECC) confined with LRS FRP and conventional FRP. Compos. Constr. 2021, 272, 114200. [CrossRef]
64. Hu, B.; Zhou, Y.W.; Xing, F.; Sui, L.L.; Luo, M.S. Experimental and theoretical investigation on the hybrid CFRP-ECC flexural
strengthening of RC beams with corroded longitudinal reinforcement. Eng. Struct. 2019, 200, 109717. [CrossRef]
65. Ge, W.J.; Song, W.R.; Ashour, A.F.; Lu, W.G.; Cao, D.F. Flexural performance of FRP/steel hybrid reinforced engineered
cementitious composite beams. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 31, 101329. [CrossRef]
66. Yuan, F.; Chen, M.C.; Pan, J.L. Experimental study on seismic behaviours of hybrid FRP–steel-reinforced ECC–concrete composite
columns. Compos. B Eng. 2019, 176, 107272. [CrossRef]
67. Zheng, Y.; Zhang, L.F.; Xia, L.P. Investigation of the behaviour of flexible and ductile ECC link slab reinforced with FRP. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2018, 166, 694–711. [CrossRef]
68. Meng, W.; Khayat, K.H.; Bao, Y. Flexural behaviors of fiber-reinforced polymer fabric reinforced ultra-high-performance concrete
panels. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2018, 93, 43–53. [CrossRef]
69. Ye, Y.Y.; Smith, S.T.; Zeng, J.J.; Zhuge, Y.; Quach, W.M. Novel Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Composite Plates Reinforced
with FRP Grid: Development and Mechanical Behaviour. Compos. Struct. 2021, 268, 114033. [CrossRef]
70. GB175-2007. Common Portland Cement; China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2007.
71. ASTM C109/C109M–16. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
72. ASTM C1856/C1856M-17. Standard Practice for Fabricating and Testing Specimens of Ultra-High Performance Concrete;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
73. ASTM C469. Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson Ratio of Concrete in Compression; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2002.
74. CSA S806. Design and Construction of Building Components with Fiber-Reinforced Polymers; Canadian Standard Association:
Toronto, ON, Canada, 2012.
75. ASTM D3039. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials (D3039M); ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.