Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Behavior of large-scale hybrid FRP-concrete-steel double-skin tubular

columns subjected to eccentric compression
Tao Jiang a, Guan Lin b, c, Pan Xie d, b, *
a
Space Structures Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
c
Department of Ocean Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, 518055, China
d
College of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Hybrid FRP-concrete-steel double-skin tubular columns (DSTCs), consisting of an outer FRP tube, an inner steel
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) tube and a concrete infill between the two tubes, are a novel form of hybrid columns which possess excellent
Double-skin columns mechanical performance and durability. Extensive studies have been conducted on such columns under
Confinement
concentric axial compression. However, limited research has been focused on the behavior of hybrid DSTCs
Eccentric compression
Stress–strain model
subjected to eccentric compression which is a common loading case in practice. Therefore, an experimental
program on nine large-scale hybrid DSTCs subjected to concentric or eccentric compression was conducted in the
present study. The load eccentricity and the thickness of the filament wound FRP tube were the main test var­
iables. The test results demonstrated that the hybrid DSTCs exhibited a highly ductile behavior under eccentric
compression. A theoretical column model was then adapted by incorporating three stress–strain models for FRP-
confined concrete for predicting the behavior of test DSTCs under eccentric compression. It was found that all the
three stress–strain models provided reasonably accurate predictions for the axial load-carrying capacities of the
test columns. However, the concentric loading stress–strain model led to significant underestimation in the
deformation capacities of the test columns due to the neglect of the effect of eccentric compression.

1. Introduction columns or concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) columns. A large amount

Extensive studies have been conducted to explore the potential of
high-performance and corrosion-resistant structures for modern con­
struction development. Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites, due
to their excellent corrosion resistance and high strength-to-weight ratio,
have attracted intensive attention in this area. One of the most prom­
ising directions is to combine FRP composites with traditional con­
struction materials (e.g., concrete and steel) to deliver such high-
performance structures [1–6]. Hybrid FRP-concrete-steel double-skin
tubular columns (DSTCs), consisting of an outer FRP tube, an inner steel
tube and a concrete infill between the two tubes, are a successful
example of such hybrid structural members. In a hybrid DSTC, the outer
FRP tube possesses fibers mainly in the hoop direction to confine the
inner concrete and provide shear resistance to the member, as well as to
protect the concrete and the steel tube from corrosion. The excellent
mechanical and corrosion resistance of hybrid DSTCs make them a
potent competitor to conventional steel reinforced concrete (RC)
of research has been conducted to investigate the behavior of hybrid
DSTCs under concentric compression [5,7–15].
In real structures, however, a perfect concentric loading on a column
is nearly impossible considering accidental eccentric loadings or unin­
tended load eccentricities as a result of geometric and/or material im­
perfections of the column. For this reason, an additional eccentricity is
required to be imposed on a column even if it is designed to be subjected
only to concentric loading in the Chinese Technical Standard for Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) in Construction [16]. However, existing
research on the behavior of hybrid DSTCs subjected to eccentric
compression (i.e., combined compression and bending) has been rather
limited. Yu et al. [17] conducted the first series of eccentric compression
tests on six circular hybrid DSTCs confined with carbon FRP (CFRP)
tubes which were formed by wrapping CFRP sheets around the hardened
concrete in the hoop direction via the wet-layup process (i.e., post-
applied FRP wraps). The specimens were small-scale which had a
diameter of only 155 mm for the concrete section and a height of 465

* Corresponding author at: College of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
E-mail address: xiepan@scau.edu.cn (P. Xie).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115258
Received 13 June 2022; Received in revised form 21 October 2022; Accepted 3 November 2022
Available online 24 November 2022
0141-0296/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Jiang et al.
mm and the inner steel tubes had an outer diameter of 76 mm and a
thickness of 3.7 mm. The examined load eccentricity included 0 mm, 9
mm, and 18 mm. A so-called “variable confinement model” was pro­
posed for the stress–strain behavior of confined concrete in DSTCs to
consider the effect of eccentric loading, which was capable of providing
reasonably accurate predictions for the test specimens. Ma [18] tested
nine small-scale square hybrid DSTCs subjected to eccentric compres­
sion, which had a side length of 150 mm (for the concrete section) and a
height of 500 mm.
It is worth noting that a greater number of experimental and theo­
retical studies have been carried out on eccentrically loaded FRP-
confined solid concrete columns [19–37] and concrete-filled steel
tubes (CFSTs) [38–41]. The findings of these studies provide beneficial
references for the understanding of the behavior of hybrid DSTCs sub­
jected to eccentric compression. In particular, the so-called “axial strain
enhancement effect” (i.e., the ultimate axial strain at the extreme
compression concrete fiber increases with the load eccentricity) has
been observed in both hybrid DSTCs [17] and FRP-confined solid con­
crete columns [32,42,43]. Furthermore, Jiang et al. [32] found that the
presence of load eccentricity decreases the slope of the second linear
portion of the stress–strain curve while increases the ultimate axial
strain of FRP-confined concrete based on the results of an experimental
program on 20 circular FRP-confined solid concrete specimens under
eccentric loading. Lin and Teng [33] found similar phenomena based on
the results of detailed three-dimensional finite element (FE) modelling
and developed a robust eccentricity-dependent (EccD) stress–strain
model for FRP-confined concrete in circular solid columns under
eccentric compression. However, the suitability of using this EccD
stress–strain model in predicting the behavior of large-scale eccentri­
cally loaded hybrid DSTCs has never been verified.
Against the above background, this paper presents the results of an
experimental program on nine large-scale hybrid DSTCs subjected to
concentric or eccentric compression. The load eccentricity and the
thickness of the FRP tube were the main test variables. Besides, the effect
of using self-compacting concrete (SCC) in hybrid DSTCs was also
investigated due to the fact that SCC is obviously more suitable than
normal concrete (NC) as the infill material in the relatively narrow
annular space of hybrid DSTCs. In addition, a theoretical column model
was adapted by incorporating three stress–strain models for FRP-
confined concrete (i.e., [17,33,44]) for predicting the behavior of the
test hybrid DSTCs. In the present paper, compressive strains in the
concrete, axial compressive strains in the FRP tube, and hoop tensile
strains in the FRP tube are defined to be positive, unless otherwise
specified.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Specimen details
Totally six hybrid DSTC specimens in two series were fabricated and
tested under eccentric compression. All specimens had a nominal outer
diameter of 400 mm (excluding the thickness of the FRP tube) and a
clear height of 1200 mm (excluding the thickness of the two steel end-
plates) and the steel tubes had an outer diameter of 325 mm, leading
to a void ratio (i.e., ratio between the inner diameter and the outer
diameter of the annular concrete section) of 0.81. Filament-wound glass
FRP (GFRP) tubes with a fiber winding angle of ±80◦ with respect to the
tube axis were adopted. Besides the eccentrically loaded specimens,
three concentrically loaded columns reported in Xie et al. [45] are also
included in the present paper for the purpose of comparison. These
concentrically loaded specimens had the same cross section as the
eccentrically loaded ones, but the former had a clear height of 800 mm.
Series 1 included three specimens (one of them was subjected to
concentric compression) filled with normal concrete (NC) while Series 2
included six specimens (two of them were subjected to concentric
compression) filled with self-compacting concrete (SCC). The geometric
2
Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258
and material properties of the test specimens are summarized in Table 1.
Each specimen was given a name which starts with letters “CC” or “EC”
indicating concentric compression or eccentric compression, followed
by a number (i.e., 10 or 8) representing the nominal thickness in milli­
meter of the steel tube, and then a number (i.e., 4 or 6) indicating the
number of plies of the prefabricated filament-wound FRP tubes, fol­
lowed by a letter “N” or “S” to differentiate specimens filled with NC or
SCC. The specimen name ends with a two- or three-digit number (i.e.,
50, 80, 100 or 150) representing the load eccentricity in millimeter.
2.2. Specimen preparation
The GFRP tube and the steel tube welded on a steel plate with a
thickness of 30 mm were used as the stay-in-place formwork for casting
concrete for all the specimens. Due to the limited capacity of the mixer,
the two eccentrically loaded specimens in Series 1 were casted using two
batches of concrete with the same mix proportion with a target
compressive strength of 40 MPa, while one batch of commercial SCC
from a local supplier with a target compressive strength of 40 MPa was
used for specimens in Series 2. The concentrically loaded specimen
CC10-4N from Xie et al. [45], however, had a much lower concrete
compression strength (26.3 MPa). After concrete hardened, high-
strength gypsum was used to cap the top surface of column [7,46],
followed by welding of the top steel end-plate to the inner steel tube
through a central hole on the steel end-plate (Fig. 1). The central hole on
the steel end-plate was designed to have different diameters at the ex­
pected compression side and the tension side of an eccentrically loaded
column. As shown in Fig. 1, the hole had a diameter equal to the inner
diameter of the steel tube at the compression side to ensure that the steel
end-plate could deliver compressive forces at the compression side by
resting on the ends of the steel tube. On the other hand, the diameter of
the hole at the tension side was slightly smaller than the outer diameter
of the steel tube, and thus the steel end-plate and the inner steel tube
could be fully welded together and tensile forces at the tension side
could be transferred effectively through the welds between the steel end-
plate and the steel tube [see Fig. 1(a)]. This design proved to be suc­
cessful in the eccentric compression tests as no damage occurred in the
welds or steel end-plates. The two ends of each specimen were
strengthened with an additional CFRP strip to avoid the unexpected end
failure. The width of the CFRP strips of each eccentrically loaded spec­
imen was 90 mm while that of the concentrically loaded specimens was
60 mm due to the shorter length of the latter.
2.3. Material properties
Ancillary material tests, including axial compression tests on stan­
dard concrete control cylinders, bare steel tubes and bare FRP tubes,
tensile tests on coupons cut from steel tubes, and hydraulic pressure tests
on bare FRP tubes, were conducted to obtain the properties of the three
constituent materials. A summary of the material properties is given in
Table 1. In the table, Din and tfrp are respectively the inner diameter and
thickness of the GFRP tubes and Do,s and ts are respectively the outer
diameter and thickness of the steel tubes. It should be noted that the
dimensions of FRP tubes and steel tubes in Table 1 are the measured
values which differ slightly from the nominal values. The values of
modulus of elasticity (Es ), yield stress (fy ), and tensile strength (fu ) of
each type of steel tubes and the values of modulus of elasticity (Ec ), peak
stress (fco
’
) and axial strain at peak stress (εco ) of each batch of concrete
obtained from the control cylinders are listed in Table 1. Additionally,
the longitudinal and hoop modulus of elasticity (Ex , Eθ ), the Poisson’s
ratio (νxθ ) for the strain in the hoop direction when stressed in the axial
direction, and the tangent modulus of elasticity at peak load in the
longitudinal direction (E*x,tan ) of the FRP tubes are also listed in Table 1.
T. Jiang et al. Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258

2.4. Test Set-up and instrumentation

Void ratio
A large number of strain gauges and linear variable displacement

0.81
transducers (LVDTs) were installed for the test specimens (Fig. 2). For

ϕ
each eccentrically loaded specimen, a total of 16 bi-directional strain
rosettes with a gauge length of 20 mm were evenly installed around the
Do,s /ts

32.50

40.63
circumference of the mid-height section (i.e., Section A). Among the 16
strain rosettes, eight (SR1 to SR8) were attached on the outer surface of
the steel tube and the remaining eight (SR9 to SR16) were mounted on
(MPa)

26.3 the outer surface of the GFRP tube (Fig. 2). In addition, Section B and
46.1
47.1
49.2
fco

Section C, 300 mm above and below Section A, respectively, were also

’

instrumented with eight evenly distributed unidirectional strain gauges

0.00338
0.00268
0.00238
0.00277
with a gauge length of 20 mm (i.e., SG1 to SG8 at Section B and SG9 to
SG16 at Section C) on the outer surface of the FRP tube (Fig. 2). Four
εco

vertical LVDTs (LT1 to LT4) covering a mid-height length of 320 mm

(referred to as the mid-height LVDTs) were installed on each specimen to
Concrete

Ec (GPa)

record the mid-height axial shortenings and five horizontal LVDTs (LT5
24.3
32.4
32.5
33.2

to LT9) were installed at different heights of each specimen to monitor

the lateral deflections in the bending direction (Fig. 2). In addition, two
LVDTs (LT10/11 at the top end and LT12/13 at the bottom end) were
fu (MPa)

414.0

314.0

fixed at the compression and tension sides of each fixed end to monitor
the end rotations. Fig. 3 shows the test set-up for the eccentric
compression tests.
fy (MPa)

Each eccentrically loaded specimen had a pinned-end boundary

289.1

261.0

condition at the two ends through the use of a specially designed steel
plate assembly as shown in Fig. 4. The steel plate assembly consisted of a
detachable steel plate and a fixed steel plate welded with a steel roller;
Es (GPa)

the detachable steel plate was machined with an 8 mm deep semi-

218.2

206.0

circular groove to nest the steel roller (Fig. 4). At each end of the
specimen, the detachable steel plate was bolted with the column steel
end-plate and the fixed steel plate was in direct contact with the loading
ts (mm)

10.13

machine for receiving load. Before testing, the grooves of the detachable
8.0

plates and the steel rollers were carefully lubricated. The steel plate
assemblies of each specimen were precisely located to achieve a pre­
Steel tube

Do,s (mm)

defined load eccentricity for the specimen. The effective length between
325.0

325.0

the centers of the two steel rollers was 1620 mm for each eccentrically
loaded specimen. All the eccentric compression tests were carried out on
a 10,000 kN servo-hydraulic testing machine using a displacement
Eθ (GPa)

34.43

40.55

41.60

control with a constant rate of 0.60 mm/minute.

3. Test results and discussions

0.099

0.124

0.102
νxθ

3.1. Test observations

E*x,tan (GPa)

Fig. 5 displays the failure modes of all eccentrically loaded speci­

mens. The views of the compression side, one of the two sides in the
5.67

6.25

6.24

eccentric loading direction, and the tension side of each failed specimen
are shown in the three photos, respectively, in each sub-figure. All
Ex (GPa)

specimens failed by the hoop rupture of the outer GFRP tube at the
10.44

10.39

11.75

compression side at or near the specimen mid-height due to dilation of

Geometric and material properties of DSTC specimens.

the concrete infill. The rupture of the GFRP tube was simultaneously
accompanied by the crushing of the inner concrete within the rupture
tfrp (mm)

zone. Tensile cracks of the GFRP tube developed along the fiber direc­
1.89
1.90
1.95
1.80
1.80
2.42
2.52
2.65
2.58

tion at the tension side due to the damage of resin (Fig. 5). The speci­
mens with a larger load eccentricity experienced a larger bending and
GFRP tube

exhibited more noticeable tensile cracks at the tension side. The removal
Din (mm)

401.7
402.8
401.8
401.1
401.6
399.1
401.2
401.1
399.2

of the GFRP tube and the inner concrete after the test revealed that the
inner steel tube experienced buckling at the compression side due to the
large axial shortenings.
EC10-4N-100
EC10-4N-80

EC8-6S-100
EC8-6S-150
EC8-4S-50

EC8-6S-50
Specimen

CC10-4N

3.2. Axial load-axial strain responses

CC8-4S

CC8-6S

In an eccentrically loaded column, the concrete at the extreme

compression fiber was the most heavily compressed over the entire
Table 1

Series

section and its response plays a key role in the behavior of the entire
1

column [33]. Figs. 6 and 7 show the curves of the axial load versus the

3
T. Jiang et al.
Fig. 1. Steel end-plate of an eccentrically loaded DSTC.
Fig. 2. Layout of strain gauges and LVDTs (unit: mm).
axial strain of the concrete at the extreme compression fiber. For the
concentrically loaded specimens, the axial strains were averaged from
the readings of four mid-height LVDTs while those of the eccentrically
loaded ones were obtained from the readings of the LVDT installed near
the extreme compression fiber (i.e., LT1 in Fig. 2). The solid marker on
each curve represents the point of FRP hoop rupture for each specimen.
It is seen that the axial load-axial strain curves of the eccentrically
loaded specimens exhibited an approximately bilinear shape. Except for
specimen EC8-6S-150, all eccentrically loaded specimens experienced
an axial load drop in the transition zone of the axial load-axial strain
curve. The load drops of the eccentrically loaded specimens with SCC
[Fig. 6(b) and (c)] are much smaller than those of the corresponding
concentrically loaded specimens [45] though they had the same un­
confined concrete strength (see Table 1). However, the concentrically
loaded specimen CC10-4N with normal concrete [Fig. 6(a)] does not
possess an axial load drop, which is different from the corresponding
eccentrically loaded specimens (EC10-4N-80/100) with a slight axial
4
Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258
load drop. Note that the concrete strength of the concentrically loaded
specimen CC10-4N (26.3 MPa) was much smaller than those of the
corresponding eccentrically loaded specimens (46.1–47.1 MPa), which
translated into a higher FRP confinement level for the former. After the
load drop, the axial load gradually increased again until FRP rupture,
and the first peak load was gradually recovered for most of the speci­
mens. After FRP rupture, some eccentrically loaded specimens could still
resist a high level of axial load with large deformation. It is worth noting
that for specimens EC8-4S-50 and EC8-6S-100, some axial load fluctu­
ations occurred before FRP rupture possibly due to the tube damage
during the loading process.
The effect of load eccentricity on the axial load-axial strain responses
can be examined in Fig. 6 where specimens differed only in the load
eccentricity are grouped together. It is evident that the specimen with a
larger eccentricity has a smaller initial stiffness and a lower axial load-
carrying capacity. In addition, the axial strain at the extreme compres­
sion fiber at FRP rupture increases with an increase in load eccentricity.
T. Jiang et al.
Fig. 3. Test set-up of eccentric compression tests.
For example, the axial strain at FRP rupture of specimen EC8-4S-50 with
an eccentricity of 50 mm is about 130 % higher than that of the corre­
sponding specimen subjected to concentric compression (i.e., specimen
CC8-4S). Such phenomenon, termed “axial strain enhancement effect”,
Fig. 4. Loading and boundary condition of an eccentrically loaded specimen.
5
Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258
has previously been observed in eccentrically loaded RC columns [42]
and FRP-confined RC columns [25,32,43]. This “axial strain enhance­
ment effect” is believed to be caused by the strain gradient due to
eccentric loading, which leads to non-uniform dilation of concrete in the
section [33].
Fig. 7 examines the effect of FRP tube thickness on the axial load-
axial strain response, where the curves of specimens EC8-4S-50 and
EC8-6S-50 are compared. Specimen EC8-6S-50 with a thicker FRP tube
had a slightly higher first peak axial load; however, after the load drop,
the two specimens exhibited very similar responses before FRP rupture.
This is reasonable as the FRP tubes used in the present study had fibers
close to the hoop direction mainly to provide confinement to the con­
crete and the role of FRP confinement becomes less significant compared
with that in concentric compression due to the lower dilation tendency
of concrete as a result of eccentric compression especially when a drop in
the axial load occurs due to the local damage of concrete.
3.3. Column lateral deflections
Fig. 8 shows the development of lateral deflections along the height
of the column at different load or deformation levels. The lateral de­
flections were obtained from the readings of five LVDTs installed at
different heights of the column (LT5 to LT9 in Fig. 2). Before the first
peak load, the deflection curves at different load levels are plotted while
after the first peak load, the curves at different levels of axial strain of the
extreme compression fiber are plotted. It can be seen that the lateral
deflections of the test columns were relatively small (the maximum
deflection at the mid-height was around 10 mm) due to the relatively
small column height. The lateral deflections developed slowly during
the early loading stages but much more rapidly after the peak axial load.
In the later loading stages, the lateral deflection curves are generally in a
symmetric shape along column height. It is worth noting that the
specimen EC10-4N-80 developed negative deflections at the lower part
during the early loading stages due to the possible geometric and ma­
terial imperfections in this specimen [Fig. 8(a)].
T. Jiang et al.
Fig. 5. Failure mode of eccentrically loaded DSTC specimens.
3.4. Key test results
The key test results, including the axial load at FRP rupture (Nu ), the
corresponding moment at the mid-height section (Mu ) (only for the
eccentrically load specimens), and the corresponding axial strain of the
extreme compression fiber at the mid-height section (εcu ), of the test
DSTC specimens are summarized in Table 2. The moment at the mid-
height section (Mu ) is composed of the first-order moment (M1 ) due to
the initial eccentricity (e) and the second-order moment (M2 ) due to the
lateral deflection (e’u ) at FRP rupture (i.e., Mu = M1 + M2 = Nu • e +
Nu • e’u ). It is evident that the axial load at FRP rupture decreases but the
corresponding moment increases with the load eccentricity. The axial
strain at the extreme compression fiber (εcu ) also increases with the load
eccentricity due to the axial strain enhancement effect as discussed in
the preceding sections. It should be noted that the value of Nu at FRP
rupture of specimens EC8-4S-50, EC8-6S-100 and EC8-6S-150 were
lower than their peak axial loads due to the axial load drops or re­
ductions before FRP rupture (Fig. 6). The bracketed numbers in Table 2
are the values of the peak axial load of these specimens and the corre­
sponding values of moment, lateral deflection, and axial strain at
extreme compression fiber at the mid-height section.
6
Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258
4. Theoretical analysis
4.1. Eccentricity-Independent (EccI) Stress-Strain models
Yu et al. [44] proposed a design-oriented stress–strain model for
confined concrete in hybrid DSTCs subjected to concentric compression
based on the framework of Teng et al.’s [47] stress–strain model for FRP-
confined concrete in solid circular columns. Such concentric-loading
stress–strain models are referred to as “eccentricity-independent
(EccI)” stress–strain models hereafter. Yu et al.’s [44] model was
developed based on the results of FE modelling of such columns [48,49]
with the effect of void ratio on the ultimate axial strain taken into
consideration. The stress–strain curve of Yu et al.’s [44] EccI model
consists of a parabolic first portion and a linear section portion, which is
described in the following equations:
( )2
Ec − E2,con 2
σc = Ec εc − ’
εc for 0 ≤ εc < εt (1)
4fco
σc = fco’ + E2,con εc for εt ≤ εc ≤ εcu,con (2)
where σc and εc = axial stress and axial strain of confined concrete,
respectively; Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete; E2,con = slope of the
linear second portion (referred to as the second-portion slope hereafter)
T. Jiang et al. Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258

Fig. 6. Effect of eccentricity on axial load-axial strain response.

’
fcc,con
= 1 + 3.5(ρk − 0.01)ρε (5)
fco’

where ρk and ρε are respectively the confinement stiffness ratio and the
strain ratio:
2Efrp tfrp
ρk = (6)
Eseco D

εh,rup
ρε = (7)
εco

where Efrp and tfrp = modulus of elasticity in the hoop direction and
thickness of FRP tube; D = diameter of the confined concrete core (equal
to the outer diameter of the annular concrete in a hybrid DSTC, Do ); Eseco
= secant modulus of concrete (Eseco = fco ’
/εco ); and εco = axial strain at
peak axial stress of unconfined concrete. The ultimate axial strain
(εcu,con ) is calculated in the following equation by considering the effect
of void ratio (ϕ) on the ultimate axial strain of confined concrete:
Fig. 7. Effect of FRP tube thickness on axial load-axial strain response. εcu,con
= 1.75 + 6.5ρ0.8 1.45
K ρε (1 − ϕ)
− 0.22
(8)
εco
in concentrically loaded columns; fco
’
= compressive strength of standard
unconfined concrete cylinders; εt = axial strain at the smooth transition 4.2. Eccentricity-Dependent (EccD) Stress-Strain models
point of the two portions; εcu,con = ultimate axial strain of confined
concrete in concentrically loaded columns. εt and E2,con are calculated by Existing studies have shown that an EccI stress–strain model fails to
the following equations, respectively: predict accurately the behavior of eccentrically loaded FRP-confined RC
columns, especially their ultimate deformation [32–34,37]. As a result,
2fco’
εt = (3) researchers have attempted to develop the so-called eccentricity-
(Ec − E2,con ) dependent (EccD) stress–strain models for FRP-confined concrete for
’
more accurate predictions of eccentrically loaded FRP-confined concrete
fcc,con − fco’
E2,con = (4) columns [17,19,28,32,33]. The most recent EccD stress–strain model
εcu,con belongs to Lin and Teng’s [33] model which was developed by modi­
fying the EccI stress–strain model of Teng et al. [47] for FRP-confined
where fcc,con
’
= compressive strength of confined concrete in concentri­ concrete in solid columns. Yu et al.’s [17] model is the only EccD
cally loaded columns, which is predicted using the following equation stress–strain model for confined concrete in hybrid DSTCs which was
when sufficient FRP confinement is provided (ρk ≥ 0.01): proposed based on a previous EccI stress–strain model developed by
them [44].

7
T. Jiang et al.
Fig. 8. Lateral deflections along column height.
In Yu et al.’s [17] EccD model, the second-portion slope of the
stress–strain curve of confined concrete in eccentrically loaded hybrid
DSTCs (E2,ecc ) is assumed to be related to the second-portion slope of the
EccI model (E2,con ) through the load eccentricity. The following
expression originally proposed by Fam et al. [19] is adopted for the
relationship between the two second-portion slopes in Yu et al.’s [17]
EccD model:
Do
E2,ecc = E2,con (9)
Do + esum
where esum is the total eccentricity which is the sum of the initial ec­
centricity e and the lateral deflection e’ of a particular column section
(obtained during the analysis process of the theoretical column model);
and E2,con is calculated in Eq. (4). The ultimate axial strain of confined
concrete in eccentrically loaded hybrid DSTCs (εcu,ecc ) is assumed to be
8
Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258
the same as that of the EccI model calculated in Eq. (8) (i.e., εcu,ecc =
εcu,con ). Therefore, the “axial strain enhancement effect” is not consid­
ered in Yu et al.’s [17] EccD model. Due to the reduced second-portion
slope of the stress–strain curve compared with that of the EccI model,
the compressive strength (fcc,ecc
’
= fco
’
+ E2,ecc εcu,ecc ) is also reduced. The
stress–strain curve of Yu et al.’s [17] EccD model is still depicted by Eqs.
(1), (2) and (3) with E2,con replaced by E2,ecc .
Lin and Teng [33] suggested that both the second-portion slope and
the ultimate axial strain of confined concrete at the extreme compres­
sion fiber of an eccentrically loaded FRP-confined solid concrete column
are affected by the strain gradient due to the eccentric loading. Based on
the results of a detailed FE study, they proposed the following equations
for E2,ecc and εcu,ecc , both of which are a function of the compression
depth ratio (Do /c, where Do is the diameter of concrete and c is the depth
of the compression region, i.e., the depth of neutral axis):
T. Jiang et al. Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258

Table 2
Key test results and predictions of test DSTC specimens.
Series Specimen Experiment results Predicted resultsb e ε’h,rup
(mm)
Nu (kN) εcu e’u (mm) M1 M2 Mu Nu (kN) εcu e’u (mm) Mu (kN⋅m)
(kN⋅m) (kN⋅m) (kN⋅m)

1 CC10-4N 5174 0.0172 NA NA NA NA – – NA NA NA 0.00751

EC10-4N- 3097 0.0181 8.72 247.76 27.01 274.77 3179/ 0.0113/ 7.42/ 277.89/ 80 0.00751
80 3164/ 0.0112/ 7.38/ 276.45/
3187 0.0151 9.58 285.50
EC10-4 N- 2951 0.0322 11.12 295.10 32.82 327.92 2905/ 0.0103/ 7.33/ 311.78/ 100 0.00751
100 2892/ 0.0103/ 7.26/ 310.21/
2905 0.0132 8.76 315.92
2 CC8-4S 4049 0.0149 NA NA NA NA – – NA NA NA 0.00869
EC8-4S- 3144 0.0341 10.71 157.20 33.67 190.87 3209/ 0.0103/ 6.60/ 181.62/ 50 0.00869
50a (3199) (0.0229) (7.55) (159.95) (24.15) (184.10) 3197/ 0.0103/ 6.51/ 180.64/
3203 0.0131/ 8.11 186.14
3 CC8-6S 4298 0.0143 NA NA NA NA – – NA NA NA 0.00715
EC8-6S- 3176 0.0234 13.11 158.80 41.64 200.44 3261/ 0.0125/ 7.97/ 189.03/ 50 0.00715
50a 3237/ 0.0124/ 7.77/ 187.00/
3273 0.0169 10.84 199.12
EC8-6S- 2378 0.0376 11.62 237.80 27.63 265.43 2546/ 0.0129/ 9.02/ 277.62/ 100 0.00715
100a (2429) (0.0212) (7.12) (242.90) (17.29) (260.19) 2515/ 0.0128/ 8.90/ 273.87/
2551 0.0178 11.87 285.33
EC8-P6S- 1916 0.0420 13.44 287.40 25.75 313.15 1984/ 0.0128/ 10.10/ 317.68/ 150 0.00715
150a (1942) (0.0222) (8.79) (291.30) (17.07) (308.37) 1952/ 0.0118/ 8.79/ 309.94/
1980 0.0176 13.08 322.89
a
Axial load at FRP rupture and peak axial load were not reached simultaneously;
b
Yu et al.’s [44] EccI model/ Yu et al.’s [17] EccD model/ Lin and Teng’s [33] EccD model, the contribution of FRP tube is ignored.

( )
Do Do nonlinear biaxial material model for FRP composites [51] for calculation
E2,ecc = E2,con 1 − 0.0808 , ≤ 12.4 (10)
c c of the axial load resisted by the FRP tube in a DSTC. The simple model
assumes that the secant axial modulus of elasticity of the FRP tube keeps
( )2
Do Do constant to be Ex before the axial strain reaches 0.004 and it gradually
εcu,ecc = εcu,con [1 + 0.263 + 0.0227 ] (11)
c c decreases linearly from Ex to E*x,tan when the axial strain increases from
0.004 to 0.04 as shown by the black solid curve in Fig. 9. Therefore, the
It should be noted that Lin and Teng’s [33] EccD model was origi­
simple model is in a bilinear shape in terms of the axial stress-axial strain
nally proposed for FRP-confined concrete in circular solid columns,
curve, which is described in the following equation in an axial
which may not be applicable to hybrid DSTCs. In the present study, the
compression condition:
above two equations, Eqs. (10) and (11), are directly adopted and the
⎧
values of E2,con and εcu,con are calculated using Eqs. (4) and (8), respec­ ⎪
⎪ Ex εx for εx ≤ 0.004
⎨
tively, for hybrid DSTCs. Further research is needed in the future for the
σx = *
− 0.004Ex )(εx − 0.004) (12)
adaption and/or modification to Lin and Teng’s [33] EccD model for its ⎪
⎪
(0.04Ex,tan
for εx > 0.004
⎩ 0.004Ex +
applicability to hybrid DSTCs. 0.036

4.3. Simple axial stress-axial strain model for FRP tube
A simple one-dimensional (1D) axial stress-axial strain model (see
Fig. 9) (referred to as “simple model” hereafter for brevity) for FRP tubes
was established in the present study based on Jones and Nelson’s [50]
where σ x and εx = axial stress and axial strain of the FRP tube, respec­
tively; Ex = axial modulus of elasticity of the FRP tube; E*x,tan = tangent
axial modulus of elasticity at the peak load of the FRP tube. The values of
Ex and E*x,tan of the FRP tubes used in the present study, which were
obtained from the axial compression tests on bare FRP tubes, are listed
in Table 1. The values of 0.004 and 0.04 were determined according to
the concentric compression tests on CFFTs and hybrid DSTCs presented
in Xie et al. [51] and Xie et al. [45]. It is noteworthy that the simple
model is a uniaxial stress–strain model for FRP tube in which the Pois­
son’s effect of the FRP tube is not taken into consideration. In the axial
tension condition, it is assumed the FRP tube possessed the same axial
stress-axial strain behavior as in its compression condition due to the
limited test data of the axial behavior of FRP tubes under tension.
The actual FRP hoop rupture strains (εh,rup ) of the eccentrically
loaded DSTC specimens were not captured as almost all the strain
gauges were damaged before FRP rupture. As a result, the FRP hoop
rupture strains ε’h,rup obtained from the corresponding concentrically
loaded specimens (referred to as the nominal FRP hoop rupture strain)
were directly used in the analysis of the eccentrically loaded specimens,
as listed in Table 2.

4.4. Theoretical column model

Fig. 9. Axial stress-axial strain curve of the simple model for FRP tubes. Though the DSTC specimens in the present study were designed to be

9
T. Jiang et al.
short, noticeable lateral deflections were observed, which led to a
second-order effect to the specimens. As a result, Jiang and Teng’s [29]
theoretical column model, which can consider the second-order effect of
an eccentrically loaded column, is employed with some adaptations for
the simulation of the test eccentrically loaded DSTC specimens. Jiang
and Teng’s [29] model was originally proposed for FRP-confined solid
columns under eccentric loading and Teng et al.’s [47] EccI stress–strain
model for FRP-confined concrete was adopted in the section analysis.
Fig. 10. Axial load-axial strain curves of concrete at extreme compression fiber.
10
Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258
The reader is referred to Jiang and Teng [29] for more details about this
column model.
Jiang and Teng’s [29] theoretical column model can be directly
adapted for the simulation of hybrid DSTCs through the following two
main modifications: (1) the cross section of a solid FRP-confined con­
crete column is replaced by that of a hybrid DSTC; (2) the stress–strain
model for confined concrete in hybrid DSTCs is used in replacing Teng
et al.’s [47] stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete. In the present
T. Jiang et al. Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258

study, Yu et al.’s [44] EccI model, Yu et al.’s [17] EccD model, and Lin
and Teng’s [33] EccD model are evaluated to examine the effect of load
eccentricity on the predicted behavior of the test eccentrically loaded
hybrid DSTCs. It is worth noting that the compression depth ratio (Do /c)
which varies during the analysis process in Lin and Teng’s [33] EccD
model should be determined via an iterative process to reach the force
equilibrium for each increment of the section analysis. On the other
hand, in Yu et al.’s [17] EccD model, the lateral deflection at each grid
point along the height of the column needs to be included in the total
eccentricity esum in Eq. (9); thus the stress–strain curve of concrete at

Fig. 11. Axial load-lateral deflection curves.

11
T. Jiang et al.
each grid point needs to be updated at each grid point for each lateral
deflection value. The inner steel tube was assumed to have an elastic-
perfectly plastic stress–strain behaviour in the longitudinal direction.
4.5. Comparison with test results
Fig. 10 shows the comparison of the axial load-axial strain curve of
the extreme compression fiber between the predictions and the test re­
sults for all eccentrically loaded specimens. In the figure, two experi­
mental curves with the axial strain being respectively obtained from the
strain gauge (i.e., SR9 in Fig. 2) and LVDTs installed near the extreme
compression fiber (i.e., LT1 in Fig. 2) are shown for each specimen for
comparison. The two experimental curves are very close to each other
before the strain gauges were damaged. The solid markers on the
experimental curves represent the point of FRP hoop rupture of the
specimens. All the predicted curves terminate at the nominal hoop
rupture strain (ε’h,rup ) of the FRP tube.
Two types of predictions were generated: one ignoring the axial load
resistance of the outer FRP tube and the other considering the axial load
resistance of the FRP tube using the simple model described in Section
4.3. The predicted axial load-axial strain curves are labelled “-1” and
“-2”, respectively, in Fig. 10. In the latter, the axial strains of the FRP
tube, which were assumed to be equal to those of the concrete based on
their displacement compatibility condition, included the axial strains
due to axial compression as well as those due to hoop tension of the FRP
tube (i.e., the Poisson’s effect). The axial strains due to the Poisson’s
effect could not be extracted from the total axial strains of the FRP tube
due to the 1D nature of the analytical approach. This would lead to an
overestimation of the axial load resisted by the FRP tube. Fig. 10 shows
that the two types of predicted curves are very close to each other for all
the specimens. This is reasonable as the present column specimens were
large-scale and the contribution of the FRP tube to the total load resis­
tance of the DSTCs was relatively small.
Fig. 11 compares the experimental and predicted load–deflection
curves of the test columns. The experimental lateral deflections were
obtained from the readings of the LVDT installed horizontally at the
column mid-height (i.e., LT5 in Fig. 2). For specimens EC10-4N-80, EC8-
4S-50 and EC8-6S-50, the predicted initial stiffnesses are evidently
larger than the test values, which may be due to the errors arising from
the unstable pinned-end condition in the initial loading stage. Specif­
ically, the steel rollers were not completely nested in the semi-circular
grooves on the detachable plates when the applied axial load was rela­
tively small. Indeed, the lateral deflection over the column height for
these three specimens was less symmetrical than the others, as shown in
Fig. 8 (a), (c) and (d). The unstable condition was gradually alleviated as
the axial load increased.
Figs. 10 and 11 show that the column model using different
stress–strain models provides accurate predictions for the load-carrying
capacities of the test columns, especially for the cases when the FRP tube
contribution is ignored (“model-1”). The predicted values of Nu , Mu , εcu
and e’ of the test columns are summarized in Table 2. The axial load drop
in the transition region, however, could not be captured by the model,
which would lead to overestimation in the load-carrying capacity. Such
overestimation is partially compensated by ignoring the axial load
contribution of the FRP tube in “model-1”. It is also seen that Yu et al.’s
EccI model [44] and EccD model [17] provide almost identical axial
load-axial strain and axial load-lateral deflection curves. In terms of
deformation, all the predicted curves based on Yu et al.’s EccI model
[44] and EccD model [17] are shorter than the experimental curves,
leading to underestimated deformation of the columns at FRP rupture.
Lin and Teng’s [33] EccD model performs better than the other two
models but still underestimates the deformation capacity of most of the
columns at FRP rupture. This underestimation is reasonable considering
the following important issues: (1) Lin and Teng’s [33] EccD model was
originally developed for FRP-confined circular solid columns and should
12
Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258
be re-calibrated using test results of hybrid DSTCs in the future; (2) the
direct use of nominal FRP hoop rupture strains obtained from the
concentrically loaded specimens may lead to underestimation in the FRP
hoop strain efficiency in eccentrically loaded specimens [33]; (3) the
possible slips between the steel tube and the concrete were not consid­
ered in the theoretical column model.
5. Conclusions
This paper has presented the results of a test program on six large-
scale hybrid DSTCs under eccentric compression. Three hybrid DSTCs
under concentric compression tested by the authors’ group are also
included for comparison. A theoretical column model was adapted by
incorporating three stress–strain models for FRP-confined concrete for
predicting the behavior of the hybrid DSTCs under eccentric compres­
sion. On the basis of the test results and the discussions presented in the
paper, the following conclusions may be drawn:
(1) All the test eccentrically loaded hybrid DSTCs possessed a ductile
behavior and failed by the rupture of the outer FRP tube due to
hoop tension at the compression side at or near specimen mid-
height. Buckling of the inner steel tube may occur at or near
the mid-height due to the large axial shortenings at the
compression side.
(2) The axial load-carrying capacity of an eccentrically loaded hybrid
DSTC decreases as the load eccentricity increases. The test hybrid
DSTCs (except specimen CC10-4N with a low concrete strength)
experienced a sudden drop in axial load when the axial load
corresponding to the unconfined concrete specimen was reached;
the load drop of an eccentrically loaded specimen was generally
less significant than that of the corresponding concentrically
loaded specimen.
(3) The axial strain at the extreme compression fiber of an eccentri­
cally loaded DSTC at FRP rupture is much larger than that of the
corresponding concentrically loaded specimen due to the “axial
strain enhancement effect”.
(4) The contribution of the FRP tube to the axial load resistance of the
test eccentrically loaded hybrid DSTCs was found to be very small
and could be ignored in the design of such columns for a con­
servative treatment.
(5) The three stress–strain models (i.e., [17,33,44]) all provide
reasonably accurate predictions for the axial load-carrying ca­
pacities of the eccentrically loaded hybrid DSTCs. Lin and Teng’s
[33] EccD stress–strain model performs much better in predicting
the deformation capacity, since it considers the “axial strain
enhancement effect” in eccentrically loaded columns. However, it
should be noted that Lin and Teng’s [33] EccD model was orig­
inally developed for FRP-confined circular solid columns and
should be re-calibrated using test results of hybrid DSTCs in the
future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tao Jiang: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Guan Lin: Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review &
editing. Pan Xie: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
T. Jiang et al.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The work presented in the paper was largely completed as part of the
PhD research program undertaken by the corresponding author at The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University under the supervision of Prof. J.G.
Teng. The authors are grateful for Prof. Teng’s enlightening guidance
and the generous help from his research group. The authors are also
grateful to The Hong Kong Polytechnic University for offering the cor­
responding author the financial support and appreciate the help from
Profs. Li-Juan Li, Feng Liu and Yong-Chang Guo when the experimental
work was conducted in the Structural Engineering Laboratory of
Guangdong University of Technology.
The authors are grateful for the financial support received from the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project Nos: 51778246,
51778569), Guangzhou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau
(Project No.: 202102080315), and the Research Grants Council of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No.: PolyU
152153/14E).
References
[1] ElGawady MA, Dawood HM. Analysis of segmental piers consisted of concrete
filled FRP tubes. Eng Struct 2012;38:142–52.
[2] Fam A, Mandal S, Rizkalla S. Rectangular filament-wound glass fiber reinforced
polymer tubes filled with concrete under flexural and axial loading: analytical
modeling. J Compos Constr 2005;9:34–43.
[3] Mirmiran A. Stay-in-place FRP form for concrete columns. Adv Struct Eng 2003;6:
231–41.
[4] Ozbakkaloglu T, Fanggi B. FRP–HSC–steel composite columns: behavior under
monotonic and cyclic axial compression. Mater Struct 2015;48:1075–93.
[5] Teng JG, Yu T, Wong YL. Hybrid FRP–concrete–steel tubular columns: concept and
behavior. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:846–54.
[6] Teng JG, Yu T, Wong YL, Dong SL. Behaviour of hybrid FRP-concrete-steel double-
skin tubular columns. Second International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil
Engineering. Adelaide, Australia2004. p. 811–8.
[7] Yu T, Teng JG. 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 2013;17:271–9.
[8] Wong YL, Yu T, Teng JG, Dong SL. Behavior of FRP-confined concrete in annular
section columns. Compos Part B-Eng 2008;39:451–66.
[9] Fanggi BAL, Ozbakkaloglu T. Compressive behavior of aramid FRP-HSC-steel
double-skin tubular columns. Constr Build Mater 2013;48:554–65.
[10] Fanggi BAL, Ozbakkaloglu T. Behavior of hollow and concrete-filled FRP-HSC and
FRP-HSC-steel composite columns subjected to concentric compression. Adv Struct
Eng 2015;18:715–38.
[11] Fanggi BAL, Ozbakkaloglu T. Square FRP-HSC-steel composite columns: behavior
under axial compression. Eng Struct 2015;92:156–71.
[12] Ozbakkaloglu T, Fanggi BAL. Axial compressive behavior of FRP-concrete- steel
double-skin tubular columns made of normal- and high-strength concrete.
J Compos Constr 2014;18.
[13] Ozbakkaloglu T, Fanggi BAL. FRP-HSC-steel composite columns: Behavior under
monotonic and cyclic axial compression. Mater Struct 2015;48:1075–93.
[14] Cao Q, Tao J, Wu Z, Ma ZJ. Behavior of FRP-steel confined concrete tubular
columns made of expansive self-consolidating concrete under axial compression.
J Compos Constr 2017;21:04017037.
[15] Xiong MX, Lan ZH, Chen GM, Lu YC, Xu Z. Behavior of FRP-HSC-steel tubular
columns under axial compression: A comparative study. Compos Struct. 2021;261.
[16] MoHaU-RDotPsRo C. Technical code for infrastructure application of FRP
composites. Beijing, China: China Planning Press; 2020.
[17] Yu T, Wong YL, Teng JG. Behavior of Hybrid FRP-concrete-steel double-skin
tubular columns subjected to eccentric compression. Adv Struct Eng 2010;13:
961–74.
[18] Ma ZQ. Performance investigation of FRP-concrete-steel double-skin square
columns under eccentric compressive loading. Zhengzhou, China: Zhengzhou
Univesity; 2013.
13
Engineering Structures 275 (2023) 115258
[19] Fam A, Flisak B, Rizkalla S. Experimental and analytical modeling of concrete-filled
fiber-reinforced polymer tubes subjected to combined bending and axial loads. ACI
Struct J 2003;100:499–509.
[20] Tao Z, Teng JG, Han LH, Lam L. Experimental behaviour of FRP-confined slender
RC columns under eccentric loading. proceedings, advanced polymer composites
for structural applications in construction (ACIC 2004). University of Surrey,
Guildford, UK; 2004.
[21] Hadi MNS. Behaviour of FRP wrapped normal strength concrete columns under
eccentric loading. Compos Struct 2006;72:503–11.
[22] Hadi MNS. Comparative study of eccentrically loaded FRP wrapped columns.
Compos Struct 2006;74:127–35.
[23] Hadi MNS. The behaviour of FRP wrapped HSC columns under different eccentric
loads. Compos Struct 2007;78:560–6.
[24] El Maaddawy T. Behavior of corrosion-damaged RC columns wrapped with FRP
under combined flexural and axial loading. Cem Concr Compos 2008;30:524–34.
[25] Bisby L, Ranger M. Axial-flexural interaction in circular FRP-confined reinforced
concrete columns. Constr Build Mater 2010;24:1672–81.
[26] Li J, Hadi MNS. Behaviour of externally confined high-strength concrete columns
under eccentric loading. Compos Struct 2003;62:145–53.
[27] El Sayed M, El Maaddawy T. Analytical model for prediction of load capacity of RC
columns confined with CFRP under uniaxial and biaxial eccentric loading. Mater
Struct 2011;44:299–311.
[28] Wu YF, Jiang C. Effect of load eccentricity on the stress-strain relationship of FRP-
confined concrete columns. Compos Struct 2013;98:228–41.
[29] Jiang T, Teng JG. Theoretical model for slender FRP-confined circular RC columns.
Constr Build Mater 2012;32:66–76.
[30] Jiang T, Teng JG. Slenderness limit for short FRP-confined circular RC columns.
J Compos Constr 2012;16:650–61.
[31] Jiang T, Teng JG. Behavior and design of slender FRP-confined circular RC
columns. J Compos Constr 2013;17:443–53.
[32] Jiang T, Zhang XQ, Yao J, Luo YZ. Stress-strain behaviour of FRP-confined concrete
subjected to eccentric compression. Proc, 13th int symp on structural engineering
(ISSE-13). Hefei, China: Hefei University of Technology; 2014.
[33] Lin G, Teng JG. Stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete in eccentrically
loaded circular columns. J Compos Constr 2019;23.
[34] Lin G, Zeng JJ, Teng JG, Li LJ. Behavior of large-scale FRP-confined rectangular RC
columns under eccentric compression. Eng Struct 2020;216:110759.
[35] Xing L, Lin G, Chen JF. Behavior of FRP-confined circular RC columns under
eccentric compression. J Compos Constr 2020;24:04020030.
[36] Li Z, Wu YF, Li P. Method to identify stress-strain relationship of FRP-confined
concrete under eccentric load. J Compos Constr 2021;25:04020080.
[37] Yuan F, Wu YF, Zhao XY. Effect of internal stirrups on the eccentric compression
behavior of FRP-confined RC columns based on finite-element analysis. J Compos
Constr 2022;26.
[38] Han LH, Yao GH, Chen ZP. Experimental behavior of steel tube confined concrete
(STCC) columns. Steel Compos Struct 2005;5:459–84.
[39] Liu DL. Behaviour of eccentrically loaded high-strength rectangular concrete-filled
steel tubular columns. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62:839–46.
[40] Yang YF, Han LH. Behaviour of concrete filled steel tubular (CFST) stub columns
under eccentric partial compression. Thin Wall Struct 2011;49:379–95.
[41] Gan D, Li ZX, Yan B, Zhou XH, Huang HH. Eccentric compression behaviour of
diagonal rib-stiffened thin-walled square concrete filled steel tubes. Thin Wall
Struct 2022;173:108891.
[42] Scott BD, Park R, Priestley M. Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by
overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI J 1982;79:13–27.
[43] Csuka B, Kollar LP. Analysis of FRP confined columns under eccentric loading.
Compos Struct 2012;94:1106–16.
[44] Yu T, Teng JG, Wong YL. Stress-strain behavior of concrete in hybrid FRP-concrete-
steel double-skin tubular columns. J Struct Eng 2010;136:379–89.
[45] Xie P, Jiang T, Lin G. Behavior of large scale hybrid FRP-concrete-steel double-skin
tubular columns subjected to concentric compression. Thin Wall Struct; 2023, 182:
110319.
[46] Zhang B, Teng JG, Yu T. Compressive behavior of double-skin tubular columns
with high-strength concrete and a filament-wound FRP tube. J Compos Constr
2017;21.
[47] Teng JG, Jiang T, Lam L, Luo YZ. Refinement of a design-oriented stress-strain
model for FRP-confined concrete. J Compos Constr 2009;13:269–78.
[48] Yu T, Teng JG, Wong YL, Dong SL. Finite element modeling of confined concrete-I:
Drucker-Prager type plasticity model. Eng Struct 2010;32:665–79.
[49] Yu T, Teng JG, Wong YL, Dong SL. Finite element modeling of confined concrete-II:
Plastic-damage model. Eng Struct 2010;32:680–91.
[50] Jones RM, Nelson Jr DA. A new material model for the nonlinear biaxial behavior
of ATJ-S graphite. J Compos Mater 1975;9:10–27.
[51] Xie P, Lin G, Teng JG, Jiang T. Modelling of concrete-filled filament-wound FRP
confining tubes considering nonlinear biaxial tube behavior. Eng Struct 2020;218:
110762.