Experimental Study on FRP–Reinforced

Concrete–Steel Double-Skin Tubular Columns under

Eccentric Compression Loads
Haiyang Gao1; Lianguang Wang2; and Ni Zhang3

Abstract: Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforced concrete-steel double-skin tubular columns (DSTCs) consist of an exterior glass FRP
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tube, an interior steel tube, and reinforced concrete in between. They have attracted the attention of researchers owing to their high ductility,
lightweightedness, resistance to corrosion, and ease of construction. However, studies regarding FRP-reinforced concrete-steel DSTCs under
eccentric loading are fewer compared with those regarding unreinforced DSTCs. To investigate the behavior of composite columns under
eccentric compression, 12 circular cross-section columns with a height of 700 mm and an outer diameter of 210 mm were tested. They in-
cluded two axial compression columns and 10 eccentric compression columns. The main parameters considered were the eccentricity, void
ratio, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and concrete strength. The results showed that the arrangement of steel bars inside the hybrid DSTCs
could improve the eccentric carrying capacity and ductility of the composite columns. Furthermore, this study showed that the eccentric car-
rying capacity and initial stiffness decreased as the eccentricity and void ratio increased, whereas they increased with the longitudinal rein-
forcement ratio and concrete strength. The growth rate of the carrying capacity decreased when the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increased
to 3.66%. When the void ratio exceeded 0.5 and the eccentricity ratio was 0.4, the ductility and carrying capacity decreased. Finally, a sim-
plified model was proposed to predict the axial load–moment curves of reinforced DSTCs. The theoretical predictions were in good agree-
ment with the experimental results of this study. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001165. © 2021 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP); Reinforced concrete; Composite columns; Double-skin tubular columns
(DSTCs); Eccentric compression loading.

Introduction pouring concrete during construction, thereby obviating formwork

Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) -concrete-steel double-skin tubular
columns (DSTCs) were first proposed by Teng et al. (2007) at the
Hong Kong Polytechnic University. They are composed of an ex-
ternal glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) tube, an internal steel
tube, and a sandwich concrete between both tubes. This new com-
posite member offers the advantages of high ductility, lightweight-
ness, resistance to corrosion, and full utilization of building
materials (Zeng et al. 2018a; He et al. 2020). Compared with
FRP-confined solid concrete columns, the hollow parts in hybrid
DSTCs can effectively reduce the self-weight of the structure,
and the ductility and seismic performance of DSTCs are better
under the double-tube constraint. During construction, the steel
tubes can be connected with the reinforcement of the beam and
slab and they can support a portion of the construction load. Com-
pared with FRP-confined hollow concrete columns, the external
GFRP tubes and internal steel tubes can serve as formworks for
1
Ph.D. Student, College of Resources and Civil Engineering, Northeast-
ern Univ., Shenyang 110819, China. Email: 1501881285@qq.com
2
Professor, College of Resources and Civil Engineering, Northeastern
Univ., Shenyang 110819, China (corresponding author). Email:
wanglianguang@mail.neu.edu.cn
3
Associate Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Liaoning Technical
Univ., Fuxi 123000, China. Email: 418688814@qq.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 22, 2021; approved on
August 6, 2021; published online on September 24, 2021. Discussion pe-
riod open until February 24, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for
Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
erection and removal. Both the external FRP tubes and the internal
steel tubes inside can effectively confine the sandwich concrete,
which allows the full performance of the concrete and enhances
the carrying capacity and deformation property of the columns
(Yu and Teng 2013; Ozbakkaloglu et al. 2016). At present, many
kinds of researches have been carried out on hybrid DSTCs, includ-
ing their compressive performance (Zeng et al. 2018b; Yu et al.
2010b; Yu and Teng 2013; Talaeitaba et al. 2015; Yu et al.
2017; Zeng et al. 2021), flexural performance (Yu et al. 2006;
Zhao et al. 2016; Huang et al. 2021), seismic performance (Han
et al. 2010; Yu et al. 2012; Ozbakkaloglu and Idris 2014; Ozbakka-
loglu and Fanggi 2015; Zeng et al. 2020), and dynamic responses
(Wang et al. 2015, 2018; Chen et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2020, 2021).
Regarding FRP-high-strength concrete-steel DSTCs, Wong
et al. (2008) tested DSTCs filled with high-strength and normal-
strength concrete under axial compression loading and concluded
that both high-strength and normal-strength concrete in hybrid
DSTCs could be effectively confined using two tubes resulting in
good ductility. Fanggi and Ozbakkaloglu (2013) and Ozbakkaloglu
and Fanggi (2014) investigated the compressive behavior of hy-
brid DSTCs under concentric loading. They discovered that the
strength and deformation property of the sandwich concrete
could be increased by using GFRP and steel tube confinement
and that the increase in the concrete strength resulted in a decrease
in the final axial strain of DSTCs. This restraint effect of DSTCs
with square holes was not comparable with that of DSTCs with cir-
cular holes. Zhang et al. (2015) tested DSTCs filled with high-
strength concrete under axial compression and cyclic lateral loads
and discovered that hybrid DSTCs exhibited excellent ductility

© ASCE 04021051-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051

 and seismic performance even when the compressive strength of
high-strength concrete was approximately 120 MPa. Furthermore,
they discovered that the damage in the column was concentrated
in a small plastic hinge area near the bottom of the column.
The deformation capacity of FRP-high-strength concrete-steel
DSTCs is small owing to the brittleness of high-strength concrete
materials. To further improve the compressive performance of
the composite member, steel bars were installed in normal-strength
concrete to form FRP-reinforced concrete-steel DSTCs. Further-
more, because the unexpected load eccentricity must be considered
when designing columns, the compressive performance of
FRP-reinforced concrete-steel DSTCs must be investigated under
combined axial-flexural loading to enhance their effectiveness in
more practical situations.
FRP-reinforced concrete-steel DSTCs under eccentric compres-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and Specimen GRCS0 were axial compression columns. Each
test specimen was a short column with a height (L) of 700 mm
and a slenderness ratio of 3.5 to reduce the effect of the slenderness
ratio on the carrying capacity and the stability of the composite col-
umns and to prevent the specimens from buckling failure under
compression. Fig. 1(a) shows the cross-section details of a typical
specimen consisting of an external GFRP tube, an internal steel
tube, and a reinforced concrete between both tubes. In all the speci-
mens, the inner diameter (D) and the thickness (tfrp) of the GFRP
tube were 200 and 5 mm, respectively. The protective cover thick-
ness was 15 mm in all the specimens. The diameter of the longitu-
dinal reinforcements was 14 mm and the diameter and the spacing
of the stirrups were 8 and 150 mm, respectively. The experimental
variables considered were the eccentricity (e = 0, 20, 40 mm), the
void ratio (χ, defined as the ratio of the external diameter of the

sion have not been investigated hitherto. This study focused on the
performance of GFRP-reinforced concrete-steel DSTCs under ec-
centric compression using experimental methods. A total of 12 col-
umns, including two axial compression columns and 10 eccentric
compression columns were tested, and the main parameters consid-
ered were the eccentricity, void ratio, longitudinal reinforcement
ratio, and concrete strength.
Experimental Procedure
Specimen Design
Twelve specimens were designed in total to study the mechanical
behavior of hybrid GFRP-reinforced concrete-steel DSTCs under
eccentric compression loading. Among them, Specimen GCS0
steel tube (Ds) to the section diameter of the specimen (D), varied
from 30% to 54%), the longitudinal reinforcement ratio (αl varied
from 0% to 4.88%), and the concrete strength fcu (46.1 and
56.2 MPa). There were no longitudinal reinforcements and stirrups
in the specimens of GCSE6–GCSE10 and GCS0 whose cross-
section details are shown in Fig. 1(b). The details of each specimen
are listed in Table 1.
To identify the specimens easily, the labels in the form of
“G-(R)C-S-x” were used. In the labels, “G,” “(R)C,” “S,” and “x”
represent the exterior glass FRP tube, plain concrete (C) or rein-
forced concrete (RC) between two tubes, interior steel tube, and
specimen number, respectively. Two loading types (eccentric com-
pression and axial compression) are distinguished by adding “E”
(e.g., GRCSE1) or excluding “E” (e.g., GRCS0) in the labels.
The label of all the axial compression specimens is 0, e.g., GCS0
and GRCS0.

Material Properties
To obtain the concrete material with different grades, concrete was
poured into the specimens in two batches. The higher grade con-
crete adopted a smaller water cement ratio, and the premixed con-
crete obtained from local manufacturers was poured into all the
specimens. Standard cubic test blocks were fabricated and cured
under the same conditions as those for the specimens. Three stand-
ard cubic test blocks (150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm) were tested for
each concrete strength grade based on GB/T 50081 (CNS 2019),
and the results showed that the compressive strengths of the con-
(a) (b) crete of two batches were 46.1 ± 0.8 and 56.2 ± 0.5 MPa,
respectively.
Fig. 1. Typical cross section of the specimen: (a) hybrid GFRP–rein-
The GFRP tubes were manufactured by Shenyang Tianyang
forced concrete–DSTC; and (b) hybrid GFRP–concrete–DSTC.
GRP, Liaoning, China, and the filament winding angle was 80°.

Table 1. Details of all the specimens

Eccentricity e Length L Steel tube diameter Longitudinal reinforcement Void ratio χ Concrete strength fcu
Type Specimens (mm) (mm) Ds (mm) ratio αl (%) (%) (MPa)
DSTC (RC) GRCSE1 20 700 89 2.44 44.5 56.2
GRCSE2 20 700 60 2.15 30 56.2
GRCSE3 20 700 89 4.88 44.5 46.1
GRCSE4 20 700 89 3.66 44.5 46.1
GRCSE5 20 700 89 2.44 44.5 46.1
GRCS0 0 700 89 2.44 44.5 56.2
DSTC GCSE6 20 700 89 0 44.5 56.2
GCSE7 20 700 89 0 44.5 46.1
GCSE8 20 700 76 0 38 56.2
GCSE9 20 700 108 0 54 56.2
GCSE10 40 700 89 0 44.5 56.2
GCS0 0 700 89 0 44.5 56.2

© ASCE 04021051-2 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051

 Based on ASTM D2290-16 (ASTM 2016), three GFRP rings cut
from the GFRP tube were subjected to a split disk experiment,
and the hoop strain gauges and axial strain gauges were symmetri-
cally set on the surface of each GFRP ring. The properties of the
GFRP tubes are listed in Table 2. Seamless steel tubes were used
to eliminate the effect of the weld on the stress distribution in the
steel tubes. Additionally, based on ASTM A501/A501M-14
(ASTM 2014) and GB/T 228.1 (CNS 2010), tensile tests of three
steel coupons for each steel tube and steel bar were conducted to
obtain the average yield and ultimate tensile strengths. The proper-
ties of the steel tubes and steel bars are listed in Tables 3 and 4,
respectively.
Specimen Preparation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Test Setup and Instrumentation
The monotonic compression test machine in the structural lab of
Northeastern University with a capacity of 5,000 kN was adopted.
This test adopted the load control for loading, which could be di-
vided into two stages: preloading and loading. Preloading could
compact the gaps among each part of the specimen and check
whether the testing instruments work normally. The maximum pre-
load was 10% of the estimated ultimate load, and then unloaded to
0. During the loading stage, the initial loading rate was 0.5 kN/s be-
fore the specimen reached 70% of its estimated ultimate load.
Thereafter, the loading rate was slowed down to 0.2 kN/s. During
the whole test process, the load increased monotonically until the
GFRP tube ruptured and the load dropped rapidly.
Four bidirectional strain rosettes were installed on both sides of

The manufacturing process of GFRP-reinforced concrete-steel the middle height section to measure the strain in the steel and
DSTCs consisted of the following steps. First, the GFRP tube GFRP tubes for each specimen column. Two strain gauges were
and steel tube were cut with a length (L) of 700 mm. The longitu- set in the middle part of the longitudinal bar, as illustrated in
dinal reinforcements and stirrups were installed in the reinforce- Fig. 3. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that both ends of the column
ment cage according to the design requirements. Thereafter, the
steel tube was placed concentrically to the reinforcement cage by
welding three equal-length steel rods to the stirrup, which could
avoid movement when pouring concrete. Then the reinforcement
cage with the steel tube was put into the GFRP tube and the centers
of both tubes coincided, as shown in Fig. 2. After the rusts on the
steel reinforcement and the steel tube were removed using a grind-
ing wheel, the strain gauges were pasted on the surface of the steel
tube and the middle part of the longitudinal bar. The inner strain
gauges were moisture-proof treated with epoxy resin and the
wires were led out from one side of the GFRP tube. Finally, the
concrete was cast into the annular area between both tubes, and
all the specimens were cured under natural conditions for 28 days.

Table 2. Properties of the GFRP tubes

Hoop Hoop Axial
tensile elastic Axial elastic
Inner strength modulus compressive modulus
diameter Thickness fh,gfrp Eh,gfrp strength Ez,gfrp
D (mm) tfrp (mm) (MPa) (MPa) fz,gfrp (MPa) (MPa)
200 5 467 27,210 174 16,680

Table 3. Properties of the steel tubes

Fig. 2. Manufacturing of the specimen.
Ultimate
Outer Yield tensile Elastic
diameter Ds Thickness ts strength fys strength fu modulus Es
(mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
60 5 261 468 198
76 5 254 463 203
89 5 258 466 200
108 5 248 461 206

Table 4. Properties of the steel bars

Ultimate
Yield tensile
Diameter strength strength fu Elongation
Material d (mm) fyr (MPa) (MPa) δ (%)
Longitudinal 14 380 495 18.6
reinforcement
(HRB335)
Stirrup 8 271 361 20.9
(HPB235) Fig. 3. Arrangement of strain gauges.

© ASCE 04021051-3 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Test setup and instrumentation.
were hinged (the top was a knife-edge hinge and the bottom was a
spherical hinge) in this study and the knife-edge plates were used to
apply the same eccentricity. Two linear variable displacement
transducers (LVDTs) separated by 180° were used to measure
the axial shortening of the specimens. The transverse deformation
of the specimens was measured by three horizontal LVDTs located
at the quartile and the middle of the total height of the specimens.
Test Results and Discussions
Failure Modes
The failure modes of all the specimens are illustrated in Fig. 5 and
Table 5. All the specimens failed by rupture of the GFRP tubes and
crushing of the concrete at the cracking place. For the specimens
with a small eccentricity (GRCSE1–GCSE8), the transverse defor-
mation was relatively small in the initial stage. When the load ap-
proached about 75%–80%Pu, the midheight deformation began to
increase significantly. When the load approached about 80%–85%Pu
(GRCSE1: 84%Pu; GRCSE2: 83%Pu; GRCSE3: 86%Pu; GRCSE4:
85%Pu; GRCSE5: 82%Pu; GCSE6: 81%Pu; GCSE7: 80%Pu;
GCSE8: 78%Pu), white strips appeared on the surface of the
GFRP tubes with a sporadic noise. The GFRP tube had obvious
wrinkles and uneven white strips appeared. With the further load
increase, the white strips became wider, and more white strips
could be seen. Also, there were sounds of frequent fiber tearing.
When the load reached the ultimate load, the GFRP tubes sud-
denly cracked at certain distances from the end (GRCSE1: 290 mm;
GRCSE2: 270 mm; GRCSE3: 290 mm; GRCSE4: 300 mm;
GRCSE5: 180 mm; GCSE6: 270 mm; GCSE7: 180 mm; GCSE8:
240 mm) and peeled off from the fracture along the filament wind-
ing direction to both sides, accompanied with a loud explosive
noise. In the case of the axial compression specimens (GRCS0
and GCS0), their failure process was similar to that of the small
© ASCE 04021051-4
J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051
eccentricity specimens, and there was no significant transverse de-
formation during the initial stage. When the load reached 1,966
and 1,360 kN (62% and 61% of the ultimate load of GRCS0 and
GCS0, respectively), white strips appeared on the GFRP tube sur-
face. With the continued increase in the load, the range of the
white strips expanded gradually. When the load reached the ultimate
load, fibers suddenly cracked at the distance of 240 mm (GRCS0)
and 230 mm (GCS0) from the top.
For the specimens with a large eccentricity (GCSE10) and a
large void ratio (GCSE9), there was no significant deformation in
the initial stage. When the load reached 1,110 and 1,253 kN
(71% and 76% of the ultimate load of GCSE10 and GCSE9, re-
spectively), the midheight deformation began to increase signifi-
cantly. When the load reached the ultimate load, a brittle crack
appeared on the surface of the GFRP tube fibers at the distance
of 190 mm (GCSE10) and 170 mm (GCSE9) from the end.
There was only one crack on the surface of the GFRP tubes with
a deep annular fracture, which belonged to a complete brittle fail-
ure. The restriction effect of the external GFRP tubes on the sand-
wich concrete could not be fully exerted.
Load versus Axial Displacement Responses
The load value was obtained directly from the loading instrument
and the displacement value was obtained by averaging the values
of the readings from the top two LVDTs. The measured axial dis-
placements of all the specimens are listed in Table 6. In the first
stage, the load increased rapidly, and the slope of the curve was
large where the relationship between the load and axial displace-
ment was almost linear. After that, the axial displacement increased
rapidly. Then the slope of the curve decreased gradually, and the
relationship became nonlinear. As the load continued to increase,
the curves became flat and almost resembled straight lines until
the specimen finally failed.
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Failure modes of the tested specimens.

Table 5. Failure modes of all the specimens (χ = 0.445) was 0.5% lower than that of Specimen GRCSE2 (χ =
Ultimate load 0.3) and the ultimate load of Specimen GCSE6 (χ = 0.445) was
Specimens Initial crack load Failure position h (mm) Pu (kN) 2.1% lower than that of Specimen GCSE8 (χ = 0.38). The speci-
men with a larger void ratio (GCSE9) showed no yield platform
GRCSE1 84% Pu 290 2,209
and extension section, which was a typical brittle failure. This
GRCSE2 83% Pu 270 2,220
GRCSE3 86% Pu 290 2,235 was mainly because the stress distribution in this specimen was
GRCSE4 85% Pu 300 2,229 nonuniform, leading to the early failure of the FRP tube under a
GRCSE5 82% Pu 180 1,855 small hoop strain. The initial axial stiffness of the specimens de-
GRCS0 62% Pu 240 3,166 creased as the void ratio increased. When the void ratio increased
GCSE6 81% Pu 270 1,996 from 0.3 to 0.445, the axial stiffness of the reinforced and unrein-
GCSE7 80% Pu 180 1,641 forced specimens decreased by 32.4% and 14.1%, respectively.
GCSE8 78% Pu 240 2,038 Fig. 6(e) shows the load–axial shortening curves of the speci-
GCSE9 76% Pu 170 1,647 mens with different longitudinal reinforcement ratios. The four
GCSE10 71% Pu 190 1,553
curves in this figure correspond to the specimens with four longitu-
GCS0 61% Pu 230 2,230
dinal reinforcement ratios of 0 (GCSE7), 2.44% (GRCSE5), 3.66%
Note: h is the height from the most failure position of GFRP tube to the end (GRCSE4), and 4.88% (GRCSE3). When the longitudinal rein-
of the column. forcement ratio increased from of 0% to 4.88%, the carrying capac-
ities of the specimens increased by 13.0%, 35.8%, and 36.2%,
respectively. The ultimate load increased as the longitudinal rein-
Figs. 6(a and b) show the load–axial shortening curves of the forcement ratio increased. When the longitudinal reinforcement
unreinforced and reinforced specimens with different eccentricities. ratio increased to 3.66%, the growth rate of the carrying capacity
The ultimate load decreased with the increase of the eccentricity, decreased. Compared with Specimen GRCSE4 (αl = 3.66%), the
owing to the greater additional bending moment caused by the carrying capacity of Specimen GRCSE3 (αl = 4.88%) only in-
larger eccentricity. This effect was more prominent for the creased by 0.3%. With the increase of the longitudinal reinforce-
reinforced specimens. The ultimate load of Specimen GRCSE1 ment ratio, the ultimate axial deformation of the specimens
(e = 20 mm) decreased by 30.2% compared with that of the axial became smaller. Besides, the initial compressive stiffness of the
compression specimen (GRSC0), whereas the ultimate load of specimens increased as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio in-
Specimen GCSE6 (e = 20 mm) only decreased by 10.5% compared creased. When the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increased
with that of the axial compression specimen (GCS0). Also, the from 0% to 4.88%, the axial stiffness of the reinforced specimens
slope of the curve decreased significantly after reaching the peak became 2–5 times larger than that of the unreinforced specimens.
point. With the increase of the eccentricity ratio, the ultimate Fig. 6(f) shows the load–axial shortening curves of the unrein-
axial deformation of the specimens became smaller. The axial stiff- forced and reinforced specimens with different concrete strengths.
ness of the specimens with larger eccentricity was smaller. When The load–axial shortening performance of the reinforced and un-
the eccentricity ratio increased from 0 to 0.2, the axial stiffness reinforced specimens under eccentric compression loading can be
of the reinforced and unreinforced specimens decreased by compared more directly in Fig. 6. The ultimate load and ductility
61.7% and 62.8%, respectively. of the reinforced specimens were higher than those of the unrein-
Figs. 6(c and d) show the load–axial shortening curves of the forced specimens. This demonstrated that the addition of reinforce-
unreinforced and reinforced specimens with different void ratios. ment to concrete could not only improve the carrying capacity of
The ultimate load decreased with the increase of the void ratio, the specimens but also improve the deformation capacity of the
while this decrease was not significant for the specimens with specimens to some extent. Compared with the specimens with
small void ratios. The ultimate load of Specimen GRCSE1 the concrete strength of 46.1 MPa (GRCSE5 and GCSE7), the

© ASCE 04021051-5 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051

 Table 6. Summary of key test results
Longitudinal
GFRP tube reinforcement Steel tube

Axial Lateral Tens. axial Comp. axial Tens. hoop Comp. hoop Tens. axial Comp. axial Tens. axial Comp. axial
shortening at deformation at Pu strain at Pu strain at Pu strain at Pu strain at Pu strain at Pu strain at Pu strain at Pu strain at Pu
Specimen Pu (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
GRCSE1 16 22 0.50 −1.51 0.44 0.90 0.5 −1.84 0.41 −0.79
GRCSE2 12 21 0.78 −1.90 0.30 0.91 1.21 −1.89 0.82 −1.46
GRCSE3 14 20 0.39 −2.01 0.21 0.96 −0.14 −1.68 −0.19 −1.91
GRCSE4 17 28 0.87 −1.45 0.40 1.25 −0.02 −1.29 0.77 −1.41
GRCSE5 25 25 0.16 −0.61 0.16 1.14 −1.24 −2.00 0.11 −0.94
GRCS0 15 — — −1.35 — 1.02 — −1.95 — −1.32
GCSE6 14 22 0.83 −1.92 0.32 1.03 — — 1.38 −1.97
GCSE7 23 25 0.45 −1.06 0.25 0.68 — — 1.06 −1.64
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GCSE8 15 17 0.54 −1.29 1.19 1.25 — — −0.10 −0.70

GCSE9 11 9 −0.16 −0.45 0.19 0.23 — — 0.01 −0.14
GCSE10 12 11 0.08 −1.05 0.07 0.46 — — −0.01 −0.23
GCS0 17 — — −1.93 — 1.19 — — — −0.55

initial axial stiffness and ultimate load of the specimens with the
concrete strength of 56.2 MPa (GRCSE1 and GCSE6) increased
significantly. These increases of the unreinforced specimens were
similar to those of the reinforced specimens. The carrying capacity
increased by 21.6% and 19.1%, and the axial stiffness increased by
234.7% and 283.9%, respectively.
Load versus Lateral Deflection Responses
The measured lateral deformations of all the specimens are listed in
Table 6. The load–midheight deflection curves for all the speci-
mens were generally similar and could be categorized into three
stages. When the load was in the range of 65%–75%Pu, the speci-
mens were in the elastic stage, the load increased rapidly, and the
midheight deflection was slight. When the load approached
70%–80%Pu, the lateral deflection increased rapidly, and the
slope of the curve decreased continuously. Here, the relationship
between the load and lateral deflection can be depicted as a
curve. As the load continued to increase, the curve entered the plas-
tic stage, and the load and lateral deflection increased linearly until
the specimens reached the ultimate load and failed. Except for
Specimen GCSE9, the curve indicated extension after the inflection
point, demonstrating the good ductility of the specimen.
Fig. 7(a) shows the effect of eccentricity on the load–midheight
deflection relationship. The load–deflection curves of the two
specimens showed a similar shape. The descending section was
not obvious, and a long horizontal extension section was observed
showing that the ductility of the specimens was less affected by ec-
centricity was observed. In the initial loading stage, the deflection
and initial stiffness of the two specimens were similar, and the dif-
ference became more evident as the load increased. Compared with
the specimen with a small eccentricity (GCSE6), the specimen with
a large eccentricity (GCSE10) indicated more sufficient horizontal
development and a larger lateral deformation corresponding to the
ultimate load. The lateral deformation capacity of the specimen
with a small eccentricity (GCSE6) was not as good as that of the
specimen with a large eccentricity (GCSE10). When the specimens
reached the ultimate load, the load increment was small, the defor-
mation was fast, and the curve was gentle.
Fig. 7(b) shows the effect of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio
on the load–midheight deflection relationship. Because no clear
yield characteristic was observed in the load–deflection curve,
the yield displacement was determined by the general yield mo-
ment method, and the ultimate displacement was the midheight
deflection of the composite column corresponding to the ultimate
load. The ductility factor of GCSE7 was 2.48, and its ductility
was the worst. When the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increased
from 0% to 4.88% (0%, 2.44%, 3.66%, 4.88%), the ductility factor
increased by 6.0%, 98.8% and 74.6%, respectively. The initial lat-
eral stiffness of the specimens with a larger longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio was larger indicating that the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio contributed positively to the initial lateral stiffness. When the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio increased from 0% to 4.88%, the
lateral stiffness of the reinforced specimens became 1.2–3 times
larger than that of the unreinforced specimens.
Figs. 7(c and d) show the effect of the void ratio on the load–
midheight deflection curves of the unreinforced and reinforced
specimens. The specimens with small void ratios had no clear fall-
ing sections and showed better ductility, whereas the specimen with
a large void ratio (GCSE9) broke early because its stress state was
nonuniform. Moreover, the initial lateral stiffness and lateral de-
flection corresponding to the ultimate load decreased as the void
ratio increased. The lateral stiffnesses of specimens GCSE8 and
GCSE6 were similar, which were 1.5–1.6 times larger than that
of Specimen GCSE9.
Figs. 7(e and f) show the effect of the concrete strength on the
load–midheight deflection curves of the unreinforced and rein-
forced specimens. The lateral deflection of the specimens with
higher strength concrete was less, but the difference was insignifi-
cant. Moreover, the initial stiffness of the specimens with high-
strength concrete was larger owing to the different elastic modulus
of the materials. When the concrete strength increased from 46.1 to
56.2 MPa, the lateral stiffnesses of the reinforced and unreinforced
specimens increased by 185% and 82.4%, respectively.
Strain Analysis
GFRP Tube and Steel Tube Strains
Fig. 8 shows the load–strain curves of the GFRP and steel tubes in
all the specimens. The measured key strain data are summarized in
Table 6. Except for the axial compression specimens (GRCS0 and
GCS0), two curves are given for each specimen. The yield point
was determined by the yield strain of each component. In the ab-
scissa, the negative and positive values represent the magnitude
of the compressive and tensile strains, respectively.
It can be observed from the load–axial strain behavior of the
GFRP tubes that the relationship between the axial strain and
load was approximately linear during the initial loading period.

© ASCE 04021051-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 6. Load versus axial shortening curves of the composite columns: (a and b) comparison of the specimens with different eccentricities [(a) un-
reinforced and (b) reinforced]; (c and d) comparison of the specimens with different void ratios [(c) unreinforced and (d) reinforced]; (e) comparison
of the specimens with different longitudinal reinforcement ratios; and (f) comparison of the specimens with different concrete strengths.

With the increase in the load, the slope of the curves decreased and
the axial strain developed significantly. The curves of the same
specimen were similar in shape and the inflection point appeared
at the same load position. At the same load position, the absolute
values of the compression side strain were significantly larger
than those of the tension side strain (the compression side strain
was about 2–3 times larger than the tension side strain). This was
because the compressive performance of the concrete in the com-
pression zone of the specimens was fully developed, making the
deformation performance in the compression zone better than
that in the tension zone. In the elastic stage, the axial strain in the
eccentric tension side was kept in the compression state, and the
compressive strain values were very small. After yielding, the
axial strain in the tension side gradually changed from the compres-
sion state to the tension state. When the load reached the ultimate
load, the axial strain in the tension side of all the specimens
changed into the tensile strain except for the specimen with a
large hollow specimen (GCSE9).
It can be seen from the load–hoop strain behavior of the GFRP
tubes that significant tensile hoop strain was produced in the

© ASCE 04021051-7 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 7. Load versus midheight lateral displacement curves of the composite columns: (a) comparison of the specimens with different eccentricities;
(b) comparison of the specimens with different longitudinal reinforcement ratios; (c and d) comparison of the specimens with different void ratios
[(c): unreinforced and (d) reinforced]; and (e and f) comparison of the specimens with different concrete strengths [(e) unreinforced and right: (f)].

compression zone, while the compressive or tensile hoop strain was
small in the tension zone. This was because the compression per-
formance of the concrete in the compression zone was fully uti-
lized. As the load increased, the concrete in the compression
zone continued to expand outward, and the hoop strain in the exter-
nal GFRP tubes also increased.
The behavior of the axial strain in the steel tubes was similar to
that in the GFRP tubes. Initially, the axial strain in the eccentric ten-
sion side remained in the compression state with a small compres-
sive strain value. After that, the axial strain in the tension side
gradually changed from the compression state to the tension
state. Finally, the steel tubes in both the compression side and

© ASCE 04021051-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 8. Load versus strain curves of the GFRP and steel tubes: (a) comparison of the specimens with different eccentricities; (b) comparison of the
specimens with different void ratios; (c) comparison of the specimens with different longitudinal reinforcement ratios; and (d) comparison of the
specimens with different concrete strengths.

the tension side yielded under compression or tension. Similarly,
the absolute strain values in the compression side were larger
than those in the tension side under the same load (the compression
side strain was about 1.5–2 times larger than the tension side
strain).
The load–strain curves of the specimens with four parameters
had their own characteristics. In the case of the specimen with a
large eccentricity (GCSE10), the yield stage was not obvious, the
strain of the GFRP tube in the tension side was small, and the
strength of the GFRP tube in the tension side was not fully utilized.
It can be found in Fig. 8(b) that the strain at the ultimate load de-
creased as the void ratio increased. In the case of the specimen
with a large void ratio (GCSE9), the hoop strain of the GFRP
tube corresponding to the ultimate load was only about 2,212,
and the confinement effect of the GFRP tube on the concrete
could not be fully exerted. As illustrated in Fig. 8(c), the longitudi-
nal reinforcement ratio gave little influence on the strain before the
load reached 0.25Pu. But the strain developed faster for each

© ASCE 04021051-9 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Load versus strain curves of the longitudinal reinforcements.
component in the subsequent loading stage. As indicated in
Fig. 8(d), the axial strain of the specimen with a higher concrete
strength developed faster than that of the specimen with a lower
concrete strength, especially in the subsequent loading stage.
Longitudinal Reinforcement Strain
Fig. 9 shows the load–strain curves of the longitudinal reinforce-
ments in all the specimens. The yield point was judged by the
yield strain in the steel reinforcement, and the yield strain line
was also drawn in Fig. 9. Each specimen in Fig. 9 had two curves
except for the axial compression specimen (GRCS0). The left side
shows the strain change in the steel reinforcement in the compres-
sion zone, and the right side shows the strain change in the tension
zone.
The load and strain changed linearly, and the axial strain of the
longitudinal bar was small in the initial stage of the loading. As the
load continued to increase, the slope of the curve decreased, and
the relationship between the load and strain became nonlinear.
After the inflection point, the curve became flat and close to a
straight line. Then the axial strain increased linearly with the in-
crease in the axial load until the specimens reached the maximum
axial stress and failed.
The absolute values of the compression side strain were signifi-
cantly larger than those of the tension side strain under the same
load. The strain of the longitudinal reinforcement was negative at
first and became positive with the increase of the load and the
movement of the neutral axis. When all the specimens reached
the ultimate state, the steel bars in the compression zone yielded
and entered the elastic–plastic or plastic stage. On the contrary,
the steel bars in the tension zone could be in the compression
state or tension state depending on the difference in the void ratio
or the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and the material might be
in the elastic stage or the elastic–plastic stage.
Theoretical Analysis
Basic Assumptions
The moment–axial load curves can reflect the variation in the nor-
mal section bearing capacity (including axial compression, bend-
ing, and compression-bending capacity) of eccentrically loaded
members under the combined action of compression and bending.
Many studies pertaining to both the compression (Teng et al. 2007;
Yu et al. 2010a) and flexural performance (Yu et al. 2006; Huang
et al. 2021; Liu and Qian 2009) of hybrid DSTCs have been
© ASCE 04021051-10
J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051
Fig. 10. Simplified N–M interaction curve.
conducted, and the corresponding bearing capacity calculation for-
mula has been proposed. In this study, the bearing capacity of re-
inforced DSTC members is further deduced, and simplified
moment–axial load curves are provided. When calculating the sec-
tion bearing capacity, the following were assumed: (1) the cross
section remains planar during deformation, and the strain of each
member is proportional to the distance from the neutral axis;
(2) the tensile strength of the concrete is disregarded; (3) the
GFRP tube is bonded well with the concrete, and its slip effect is
disregarded; and (4) the compressive stress figure of concrete in
the compression zone is equivalent to a rectangle, and the ratio
of the height of the equivalent rectangular compression zone to
the height of the concrete compression zone is 0.85.
Proposed N–M Simplified Model
As shown in Fig. 10, we selected five key points on the N–M curve
and connected the five points with a straight line to express the
N–M correlation curve. For a more accurate prediction and consid-
ering the reinforcement effect of steel bars on the compressive
strength of confined concrete, two different concrete confinement
models were selected to describe the sandwich concrete in rein-
forced and unreinforced specimens. The two-stage model proposed
by Yu et al. (2010a) was used for the sandwich concrete in rein-
forced DSTC specimens. The compressive strength of the rein-
forced DSTC-confined concrete was obtained as follows:


f ′cc 1 + 3.5(ρK − 0.01)ρε if ρK ≥ 0.01
= (1)
f ′co 1 if ρK < 0.01
εcc −0.22
= 1.75 + 6.5ρ0.8
K ρε (1 − χ)
1.45
(2)
εco
where ρK = stiffness constraint ratio expressed as ρK = (Eh,gfrptfrp/
EoRo); ρɛ = strain ratio expressed as ρε = (εh,rup /εco ); Eo = secant
modulus of unconfined concrete under peak stress; ɛh,rup = rupture
hoop strain of the GFRP tube; Ro = outer radius of the sandwich
concrete; and f ′co , εco = compressive strength and ultimate strain
of unconfined concrete, respectively.
Another constraint model suitable for DSTC is based on the uni-
fied theory established by Lignola et al. (2008). By calibrating tri-
axial test data (Jamatia and Deb 2020), the equation for the strength
of the confined concrete was obtained as follows:
qR2
f ′l = (3)
R2 − r2
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 11. Stress and strain distributions over the cross section: (a) Case 1 (x > R); and (b) Case 2 (x ≤ R).

   Based on the balance of force and moment, the axial load and
′ ′ f ′l f ′l
f cc =f co −1.254 + 2.254 1 + 7.94 ′ − 2 ′
f co fco
 
f ′cc
εcc = εco 1 + 5 −1
f ′co
where f ′l = equivalent confining pressure provided by the GFRP
tube, and q = external pressure applied to the concrete cylinder.
Fig. 11 shows the strain and stress distributions when the com-
pression concrete edge reached the ultimate strain ɛcu. Based on the
position of the neutral axis, the calculation of the eccentric bearing
capacity can be categorized into two cases: (1) the height of the
compression zone is greater than the section radius (x > R); and
(2) the height of the compression zone is less than or equal to the
section radius (x ≤ R). The nonlinear stress distribution of concrete
is expressed as a uniform rectangular distribution with a compres-
sive stress of 0.85 f ′cc . θ and θ′ , respectively, represent the center
angles of the concrete height boundary line at the positions of the
GFRP tube and steel tube, and the units are radian. The relation-
ships between the height of the concrete compression zone (x)
with each of θ and θ′ are shown as follows:
bending moment can be expressed as follows:
(4)
Nu = 0.85 f ′cc Acc + σ fc A fc + fys (Asc − Ast ) + σ rc,i Ar
− σ rt,i Ar − σ ft A ft (7)
(5)
Mu = 0.85 f ′cc Acc ycon + σ fc A fc y fc + fys (Asc ysc + Ast yst )
+ σ ft A ft y ft + σ r,i Ar yi (8)
where Acc = sectional area of the concrete in the compression zone,
as shown in the shaded areas in Figs. 11(a and b). Afc and Aft = sec-
tional areas of the GFRP tube under compressive and tensile
stresses, respectively. Asc and Ast = sectional areas of the steel
tube under compressive and tensile stresses, respectively. σfc and
σft = axial compressive strength and axial tensile strength of the
GFRP tube, respectively. σrt,i and σrc,i = stresses of the ith steel
bar in the tension and compression zones, respectively. yi = dis-
tance from the ith steel bar to the center line of the section.
Based on the geometric relationship, distances ycon, yfc, yft, ysc,
and yst from the centroid of areas Acc, Afc, yft, Asc, and Ast to the cen-
ter line of the section can be expressed as follows:

R−x R−x 4R3 sin3 θ − 4r3 sin3 θ′

cos θ = cos θ′ = (6) ycon = (9)
R r 3[R2 (2θ − sin 2θ) − r2 (2θ′ − sin 2θ′ )]

© ASCE 04021051-11 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051

 (R + 0.5t frp ) sin θ remains in the compression state (Ast = 0, ysc = yst = 0). At this
y fc = (10a) time, the compressive reinforcement yields (σrc = fyr), whereas
θ
the tensile reinforcement does not yield (σrc = ɛrcEs).
(R + 0.5t frp ) sin θ Point D: Point D corresponds to the maximum bending moment
y ft = (10b) of the section. Analyzing the specimens in this study, it was discov-
π−θ
ered that the maximum bending moment often occurred when the
(r − 0.5ts ) sin θ′ neutral axis coincided with the center line of the section (i.e., x =
ysc = (11a) R). At this time, the tension and compression areas of the steel
θ′
tube and GFRP tube were equal (i.e., Asc = Ast = 0.5As, Afc = Aft =
(r − 0.5ts ) sin θ′ 0.5Af).
yst = (11b) Point E: Point E corresponds to the member under pure bend-
π − θ′
ing, and the compressive capacity is zero (i.e., Nu,E = 0). Substitut-
Point A: Point A corresponds to the member under axial com- ing Nu = 0 into Eq. (7), the height of concrete compression zone x is
pression, and the bending capacity is zero (i.e., Mu,A = 0). Based on obtained through iteration, and then the center angles (θ and θ′ ) at
the balance of forces, the axial load at point A can be expressed as the position of the GFRP tube and steel tube were obtained using
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

follows: Eq. (6). The bending moment at point E (Mu,E) was obtained by
Nu,A = 0.85 f ′cc Acc + fz,gfrp Af + nfyr Ar + fys As (12) substituting θ and θ′ into Eq. (8).

where Af = sectional area of the GFRP tube, expressed as
Af = A fc + A ft = π(2Rtf − tf2 ). As = sectional area of the steel tube,
expressed as As = Asc + Ast = π(2rts − ts2 ). Ar and n represent the
cross-sectional area and number of longitudinal reinforcements,
respectively.
Point B: Point B corresponds to the case where the neutral axis
passes through the bottom reinforcements, and the entire section of
the steel tube is in the compression state (Ast = 0, ysc = yst = 0). At
this time, the compressive reinforcement yields (σrc = fyr), whereas
the stress of the tensile reinforcement is zero (σrt = 0).
Point C: Point C corresponds to the situation where the neutral
axis is tangent to the bottom of the steel tube, and the steel tube
Validation of Calculated Model
The N–M interaction diagram was constructed using the predicted
5-point calculation formula, and the predicted results were com-
pared with the experimental results listed in Table 5, as shown in
Fig. 12. Except for that the bearing capacity of GRCS0 was slightly
higher than the calculated value, the bearing capacity of other
specimens was in good agreement with that calculated using the
proposed N–M interaction model, which was basically in the
range of ±15%. The main reason for this phenomenon was that
the existing confined concrete model, which only considered the
confinement effect from the GFRP tubes and did not consider the
reinforcement effect of the reinforcement cage in the DSTC,

Fig. 12. Comparison between the calculated and experimental results.

© ASCE 04021051-12 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051

 thereby resulting in an underestimated axial bearing capacity of the
reinforced DSTC. Additionally, this validated the rationality of se-
lecting two different constitutive models for reinforced and unrein-
forced members.
Conclusions
An experimental study using 12 columns (2 axial compression col-
umns and 10 eccentric compression columns) was conducted. The
main parameters in this study were eccentricity, void ratio, longitu-
dinal reinforcement ratio, and concrete strength. The main findings
and conclusions were drawn as follows:
1. The arrangement of steel bars inside the hybrid DSTCs im-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
proved the eccentric carrying capacity and ductility of the com-
posite columns. The failure mode of the reinforced DSTCs was
similar to that of the unreinforced DSTCs and they failed owing
to the rupture of the GFRP tubes. It is recommended that the re-
inforcement DSTCs with a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of
3.66% and a void ratio of not more than 0.5 are used in the de-
sign for better material performance.
2. The eccentric carrying capacity decreased as the eccentricity
and void ratio increased, whereas it increased with the increase
of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio and concrete strength.
When the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increased to 3.66%,
the growth rate of the carrying capacity decreased. When the
void ratio exceeded 0.5 and the eccentricity ratio was 0.4, the
ductility and carrying capacity decreased significantly.
3. The initial stiffness decreased as the eccentricity and void ratio
increased, whereas it increased with the increase of the longitu-
dinal reinforcement ratio and concrete strength. The concrete
strength and longitudinal reinforcement significantly affected
the axial stiffness and lateral stiffness, where the effect on the
axial stiffness was more prominent than that on the lateral stiff-
ness. When the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increased from
0% to 4.88%, the lateral stiffness of the reinforced specimens
was 1.2–3 times larger and the axial stiffness was 2–5 times
greater than those of the unreinforced specimens.
4. The load–deflection curves could be divided into three stages.
When the load was in the range of 65%–75%Pu, the load–
deflection relationship in the composite columns was linear.
When the load exceeded this value, the relationship became
nonlinear. As the load continued to increase, the curves be-
came flat and almost resembled straight lines until the speci-
mens failed. FRP-reinforced concrete-steel DSTC exhibited
good lateral deflection performance under eccentric compres-
sion loading.
5. Based on the strain analysis of the GFRP-reinforced
concrete-steel DSTCs under eccentric compression, the axial
and hoop strains in the compression side were significantly
larger than those in the tension side under the same load condi-
tion. The void ratio of the specimens affected the strain of the
components, and the ultimate strain decreased as the void
ratio increased. For the specimens with a large void ratio
(0.54) and a large eccentricity ratio (0.4), the confinement effect
of the GFRP tubes on the concrete could not be fully exerted.
6. A simplified model was proposed to predict the N–M curves of
reinforced DSTC. The models of Yu and Lignola were used to
calculate the bearing capacity of the specimens in this study, and
the calculated results were compared with the experimental re-
sults. The results showed that the bearing capacity of the speci-
mens was in good agreement with that calculated using the
proposed N–M interaction model, which was basically within
±15%.
© ASCE 04021051-13
J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Youth Fund of Chinese National
Natural Science Foundation (No. 51808100) and the Natural Sci-
ence Foundation of Liaoning Province (No. 20170540303).
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Acc = sectional area of the concrete in the compression zone;
Af = sectional area of the GFRP tube;
Afc, Aft = sectional areas of the GFRP tube under compressive
and tensile stresses, respectively;
Ar = sectional area of longitudinal reinforcement;
As = sectional area of the steel tube;
Asc, Ast = sectional areas of steel tube under compressive and
tensile stresses, respectively;
Eo = secant modulus of unconfined concrete under peak
stress;
Es = elastic modulus of steel tube;
f ′cc = compressive strength of confined concrete;
f ′co = compressive strength of unconfined concrete;
f ′l = equivalent confining pressure provided by the GFRP
tube;
fyr, fys = yield strength of reinforcement and steel tube,
respectively;
n = number of longitudinal reinforcements;
Pu = ultimate load;
q = external pressure applied to the concrete cylinder;
R = section radius;
Ro = outer radius of sandwich concrete;
r = outer radius of steel tube;
tfrp = thickness of the GFRP tube;
ts = thickness of the steel tube;
x = height of the compression zone;
ycon, yfc, yft, ysc, yst = distances from centroid of areas Acc, Afc, yft,
Asc and Ast to the center line;
yi = distance from the ith steel bar to the center line;
ɛcc = ultimate strain of confined concrete;
ɛco = ultimate strain of unconfined concrete;
ɛh,rup = rupture hoop strain of the GFRP tube;
θ, θ′ = center angles of concrete height boundary line at the
positions of the GFRP tube and steel tube;
ρK = stiffness constraint ratio expressed as ρK = (Eh,gfrptfrp/
EoRo);
ρɛ = strain ratio expressed as ρɛ = (ɛh,rup/ɛco);
σfc, σft = axial compressive strength and axial tensile strength of
the GFRP tube, respectively; and
σrt,i, σrc,i = stresses of the ith steel bar in tension and compression
zones, respectively.
References
ASTM. 2014. Standard specification for hot-formed welded and seamless
carbon steel structural tubing. ASTM A501/A501M-14. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
J. Compos. Constr.
 ASTM. 2016. Standard test method for apparent hoop tensile strength of
plastic or reinforced plastic pipe. ASTM D2290-16. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Chen, Z. L., J. Y. Wang, J. Chen, H. GangaRao, R. F. Liang, and W. Q. Liu.
2020. “Responses of concrete-filled FRP tubular and concrete-filled
FRP–steel double skin tubular columns under horizontal impact.”
Thin-Walled Struct. 155 (3): 106941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws
.2020.106941.
CNS (China National Standard). 2010. Metallic materials. Tensile testing.
Part 1: Method of test at room temperature. GB/T 228.1. Beijing: China
Standard Press.
CNS (China National Standard). 2019. Standard for test method of me-
chanical properties on ordinary concrete. GB/T 50081. Beijing:
China Standard Press.
Fanggi, B. A. L., and T. Ozbakkaloglu. 2013. “Compressive behavior of
aramid FRP–HSC–steel double-skin tubular columns.” Constr. Build.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM University on 07/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mater. 48: 554–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.07.029.
Han, L. H., Z. Tao, F. Y. Liao, and Y. Xu. 2010. “Tests on cyclic perfor-
mance of FRP–concrete–steel double-skin tubular columns.”
Thin-Walled Struct. 48 (6): 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws
.2010.01.007.
He, K., Y. Chen, and Y. Yan. 2020. “Axial mechanical properties of
concrete-filled GFRP tubular hollow composite columns.” Compos.
Struct. 243: 112174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112174.
Huang, Z. Y., Y. W. Zhou, G. T. Hu, W. Deng, H. Gao and L. Sui. 2021.
“Flexural resistance and deformation behaviour of CFRP–ULCC–steel
sandwich composite structures.” Compos. Struct. 257: 113080. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113080.
Jamatia, R., and A. Deb. 2020. “FRP confined hollow concrete columns
under axial compression: A comparative assessment.” Compos.
Struct. 236: 111857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.111857.
Lignola, G. P., A. Prota, G. Manfredi, and E. Cosenza. 2008. “Unified
theory for confinement of RC solid and hollow circular columns.”
Composites, Part B 39 (7–8): 1151–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compositesb.2008.03.007.
Liu, M., and J. Qian. 2009. “Moment–curvature relationship of FRP–con-
crete–steel double-skin tubular members.” Front. Archit. Civ. Eng.
China 3 (1): 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-009-0012-7.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and B. A. L. Fanggi. 2014. “Axial compressive behavior
of FRP–concrete–steel double-skin tubular columns made of normal-
and high-strength concrete.” J. Compos. Constr. 18 (1): 04013027.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000401.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and B. A. L. Fanggi. 2015. “FRP–HSC–steel composite
columns: Behavior under monotonic and cyclic axial compression.”
Mater. Struct. 48 (4): 1075–1093. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013
-0216-0.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., B. A. L. Fanggi, and J. Zheng. 2016. “Confinement
model for concrete in circular and square FRP–concrete–steel double-
skin composite columns.” Mater. Des. 96: 458–469. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.matdes.2016.02.027.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Y. Idris. 2014. “Seismic behavior of
FRP-high-strength concrete–steel double-skin tubular columns.”
J. Struct. Eng. 140 (6): 04014019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0000981.
Talaeitaba, S. B., M. Halabian, and M. Ebrahim Torki. 2015. “Nonlinear
behavior of FRP-reinforced concrete-filled double-skin tubular columns
using finite element analysis.” Thin-Walled Struct. 95: 389–407. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2015.07.018.
Teng, J. G., T. Yu, Y. L. Wong, and S. L. Dong. 2007. “Hybrid FRP–con-
crete–steel tubular columns: Concept and behavior.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 21 (4): 846–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006
.06.017.
Wang, R., L. H. Han, and Z. Tao. 2015. “Behavior of FRP–concrete–steel
double skin tubular members under lateral impact: Experimental
study.” Thin-Walled Struct. 95: 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws
.2015.06.022.
© ASCE 04021051-14
J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(6): 04021051
Wang, W. Q., C. Q. Wu, and J. Li. 2018. “Numerical simulation of hybrid
FRP–concrete–steel double-skin tubular columns under close-range
blast loading.” J. Compos. Constr. 22 (5): 04018036. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000871.
Wang, W. Q., C. Q. Wu, Z. X. Liu, and K. X. An. 2020. “Experimental in-
vestigation on the hybrid FRP–UHPC–steel double-skin tubular col-
umns under lateral impact loading.” J. Compos. Constr. 24 (5):
04020041. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001057.
Wang, W. Q., C. Q. Wu, Y. Yu, and J. J. Zeng. 2021. “Dynamic responses
of hybrid FRP–concrete–steel double-skin tubular column (DSTC)
under lateral impact.” Structures 32: 1115–1144. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.istruc.2021.02.062.
Wong, Y. L., T. Yu, J. G. Teng, and S. L. Dong. 2008. “Behavior of
FRP-confined concrete in annular section columns.” Composites, Part
B 39 (3): 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.04.001.
Yu, T., and J. G. Teng. 2013. “Behavior of hybrid FRP–concrete–steel
double-skin tubular columns with a square outer tube and a circular
inner tube subjected to axial compression.” J. Compos. Constr.
17 (2): 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614
.0000331.
Yu, T., J. G. Teng, and Y. L. Wong. 2010a. “Stress–strain behavior of con-
crete in hybrid FRP–concrete–steel double-skin tubular columns.”
J. Struct. Eng. 136 (4): 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0000121.
Yu, T., Y. L. Wong, and J. G. Teng. 2010b. “Behavior of hybrid FRP–con-
crete–steel double-skin tubular columns subjected to eccentric compres-
sion.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 13 (5): 961–974. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369
-4332.13.5.961.
Yu, T., Y. L. Wong, J. G. Teng, S. L. Dong, and E. S. Lam. 2006. “Flexural
behavior of hybrid FRP–concrete–steel double-skin tubular members.”
J. Compos. Constr. 10 (5): 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0268(2006)10:5(443).
Yu, T., B. Zhang, Y. B. Cao, and J. G. Teng. 2012. “Behavior of hybrid
FRP–concrete–steel double-skin tubular columns subjected to cyclic
axial compression.” Thin-Walled Struct. 61: 196–203. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.tws.2012.06.003.
Yu, T., S. Zhang, L. Huang, and C. Chan. 2017. “Compressive behavior of
hybrid double-skin tubular columns with a large rupture strain FRP
tube.” Compos. Struct. 171: 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compstruct.2017.03.013.
Zeng, J. J., J. F. Lv, G. Lin, Y. C. Guo, and L. J. Li. 2018a. “Compressive
behavior of double-tube concrete columns with an outer square FRP
tube and an inner circular high-strength steel tube.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 184: 668–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07
.034.
Zeng, J. J., Y. Z. Zheng, and Y. L. Long. 2021. “Axial compressive behav-
ior of FRP–concrete–steel double skin tubular columns with a rib-
stiffened Q690 steel tube and ultra-high strength concrete.” Compos.
Struct. 268: 113912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.113912.
Zeng, L., L. Li, Z. Su, and F. Liu. 2018b. “Compressive test of GFRP–re-
cycled aggregate concrete–steel tubular long columns.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 176: 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05
.068.
Zeng, L., L. Li, P. Xiao, J. Zeng, and F. Liu. 2020. “Experimental study of
seismic performance of full-scale basalt FRP–recycled aggregate
concrete–steel tubular columns.” Thin-Walled Struct. 151: 106185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.106185.
Zhang, B., J. G. Teng, and T. Yu. 2015. “Experimental behavior of hybrid
FRP–concrete–steel double-skin tubular columns under combined axial
compression and cyclic lateral loading.” Eng. Struct. 99: 214–231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.05.002.
Zhao, J. L., J. G. Teng, T. Yu, and L. J. Li. 2016. “Behavior of large-scale
hybrid FRP–concrete–steel double-skin tubular beams with shear con-
nectors.” J. Compos. Constr. 20 (5): 04016015. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000669.
J. Compos. Constr.