Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TECHNICAL PAPER
699
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The objectives of this paper can be summarized as follows:
1. To investigate the influence of the slenderness ratio of
CFFT columns on the critical buckling load and the ultimate
capacity of such columns;
2. To investigate the relative importance of internal
reinforcement, concrete compressive strength, and thickness
of the FRP tubes on the buckling mode of failure of CFFT
columns; and
Table 1Dimension and mechanical properties
of FRP tubes
Tube D,
type mm
No.
Tfrp , of
mm layers
152
2.65
II
152
6.40
14
fux ,
MPa
fufrp ,
MPa
8785 20,69
57.90
0
345
390
Stacking
sequence
[60]3
Ex ,
MPa
Ey ,
MPa
Note: D and tfrp are internal diameter and thickness of FRP tubes, respectively; fufrp
and fux are ultimate strength in hoop and axial direction, respectively; Ex and Ey are
Youngs modulus in longitudinal and hoop directions, respectively; 1 mm = 0.04
in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
ID
30IA*
Tube
l, mm
kl/r
fc, MPa
fcc , MPa
fcc /fc
cc
ch
Py, kN
Pu , kN
Py /Pu , %
Failure
mode
305
30
72.50
2.47
0.045
0.038
1316
C-R
305
45
85.95
1.91
0.041
0.034
1561
C-R
30IIA*
II
305
30
123.5
4.11
0.041
0.028
2231
C-R
60IA
610
30
78.42
2.61
0.035
0.025
890
1652
53.87
C-R-L
60IB
610
45
83.50
1.85
0.022
0.013
1195
1741
68.63
C-R-L
60IIA
II
610
30
122.7
4.09
0.029
0.019
1068
2430
43.95
C-R-L
90IA
912
12
30
67.14
2.23
0.033
0.025
935
1454
64.30
C-R-L
90IB
912
12
45
75.17
1.67
0.017
0.010
1159
1595
72.66
C-R-L
90IIA
II
912
12
30
117.5
3.92
0.031
0.019
1203
2338
51.45
C-R-L
120IA
1216
16
30
52.77
1.76
0.021
0.013
996
1202
82.86
120IB
1216
16
45
62.12
1.38
0.014
0.008
1150
1366
84.18
120IIA
II
1216
16
30
99.17
3.30
0.021
0.012
1153
2016
57.19
C-R-B
150IA
1520
20
30
46.50
1.55
0.015
0.011
1086
1127
96.36
150IB
1520
20
45
52.83
1.17
0.014
0.009
1167
1203
97.00
150IIA
II
1520
20
30
94.78
3.16
0.026
0.018
1217
1939
62.76
C-R-B
Spiral
steel
912
12
30
31.34
1.04
805
826
97.45
912
12
45
33.34
0.74
838
861
97.32
30IB
Cont-A*
*
Cont-B
is length of specimen; k is column effective length factor (equal 0.5 in our analysis: fixed-fixed columns); r is radius of gyration of cross
section; C is concrete compression failure (crushing); R is FRP-tube ruptures; L is steel bar local buckling; and B is buckling.
Note: 1 mm = 0.04 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 cm = 0.3937 in.
700
Test specimens
Table 2 summarizes the different configurations of the
tested specimens. The experimental program was carried
out on 22 specimens: 18 CFFT columns and four RC
columns. The 22 specimens were included in six series.
The tested columns had a circular cross section 152 mm (6 in.)
in diameter. In the second column (labeled ID) of Table 2,
the numbers indicate the column height in centimeters; I
or II refers to the tube type; and the letters A and B stand
for the concrete strengths of 30 and 45 MPa (4.35 and
6.525 ksi), respectively.
Each series included three specimens with the same height
and different concrete strengths or FRP types, as shown in
Table 2. The first two specimens in each series were cast in
an FRP tube, Type I, with the two different concrete batches.
The third specimen in each series was cast in an FRP tube,
Type II, with a concrete batch of Type A (fc = 30 MPa). The
column height ranged from 305 to 1520 mm (12 to 60 in.)
(Series 1 to 5). Series 1 had two replicas for each specimen
with a total of six specimens in this series. The objective of
this particular series was to measure the ultimate capacity of
a short concrete column. This particular series intended to
measure the mechanical characteristics (ultimate load and
initial and tangent Youngs modulus) of the concrete
confined with two FRP tube types. Series 6 included control
specimens with internal spiral steel reinforcements (pitch =
50.6 mm [2 in.]) instead of FRP tubes. In this series, two
replicas were taken for each column. The pitches of the steel
were designed to have approximately the same hoop stiffness of
the Type I FRP tube. Series 2 to 5 represented long CFFT
columns with a slenderness ratio ranging from 8 to 20. All of
the columns in these series were internally reinforced with
six deformed steel bars (10M) with a reinforcement ratio of
3.30%. The bars were uniformly distributed inside the cross
section of the GFRP tube. Two steel stirrups were used at the
top and the bottom of each specimen to fix the bars in their
positions during casting.
Fig. 2Experimental ultimate load-carrying capacityversus-slenderness ratios (kl/r). (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips;
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
702
703
Fig. 5Effect of various parameters on ultimate strength of CFFT columns. (Note: 1 MPa =
0.145 ksi.)
704
(2)
0.2
Ef t frp
+ 1.3456 -----------(MPa)
D
(3)
E o = E co [ 1 + s ( n 1 ) ] (MPa)
(4)
E t = E ct (MPa)
Buckling loads
The plastic responses of confined concrete columns mean
that the critical or buckling loads of these concrete columns
are significantly less than the elastic Euler buckling load. For
columns that were too slender, it was impossible to exceed
the initial yield limit before the column buckled. Thus, the
critical buckling load is controlled by the elastic behavior of
the column (elastic Euler load with PE = 2EoI/(kl)2).
Thus, the inelastic buckling load obviously becomes irrelevant
for the design purposes. The inelastic buckling load is
important in the analysis for columns that are not too slender
and not too short, where they can buckle after reaching the
yielding stress fco. The inelastic buckling load of confined
concrete columns can be determined using two formulas
(Baant and Cedolin 1991). The first buckling load is known
as the reduced modulus load Pr and the second buckling
formula is computed according to the tangent modulus
expression Pt. The earlier formula represents the upper
inelastic buckling load, whereas the former corresponds to
the lower buckling limit. Generally, the critical buckling
load (maximum applied axial load) is located between the
aforementioned two loads.
When the column starts to buckle due to the curvature of the
deflected column, one face of the column undergoes unloading
while the other face continues loading. This means that the
buckling load could remain constant (Baant and Cedolin
1991). The buckling load according to this assumption is
referred to as the reduced modulus load Pr . The reduced
modulus load is computed as (Baant and Cedolin 1991)
2
Er I
P r = ------------( kN )
2
( kl )
(6)
where
E co = 3950 f c (MPa)
E ct = 245.61f c
1 1
1
E r = --- ---------- + ---------
2 E
E t
u
Et I
- ( kN )
P t = -----------2
( kl )
(7)
(8)
P max
2 ----------P
+1 t
1----------+ Pt
2
cr
f t frp
- 245.61f 0.2 + 1.3456 E
-----------( 1 s ) *
c
t = -
D
(10)
= =
--- ( 3950 f c ) [ 1 + s ( n 1 ) ]
E
0.7
2f lfrp t frp-
f cc = f c + 6.0 ------------------D
*Inelastic buckling.
Elastic buckling.
Rupture of FRP tubes.
If the column is not too slender (that means t > fco), then
the column starts to buckle following an inelastic buckling
response. For columns that are too slender (t < fco), it is
impossible for a column to not buckle before reaching the
yield limit fco. Accordingly, there is no solution for t, and
the column instability is controlled by the elastic buckling
(11)
E
2
cr = --- ------t- -----------S f cc + 1
(12)
This leads to
where Et and fcc are determined from Eq. (5) and (10),
respectively. In Eq. (12), S is the safety factor. The
AASHTO LRFD (2009) specification uses S = 2.12 to
control the buckling load limit and = Eu/Et. The effect of the
concrete compressive strength and the lateral stiffness of the
FRP tubes are shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b), respectively. With an
increase in the concrete compressive strength or a decrease in the
lateral stiffness of the FRP tubes, the critical slenderness
ratio (Fig. 7(a) and (b), respectively) increases. This indicates
that the buckling behavior of CFFT columns significantly
depends on the properties of FRP and concrete. From Fig. 7,
the critical slenderness ratio of the CFFT columns depends
on the buckling load formula; that is, the tangent Euler
formula or the critical buckling load. The slenderness limit
observed in the experimental part of this research ( = 12) or
that provided by Mirmiran et al. (2001) ( = 11) is slightly
less than that predicted from the theoretical analysis (Fig. 7).
This can be ascribed to the influence of the size effect and
geometrical imperfections that have not yet been considered in
theoretical studies. In conclusion, a slenderness limit of 12
for CFFT columns is a safe value for the design purpose.
Equation (12) is relevant for the design purposes by dividing
the predicted slenderness ratio by an appropriate factor of
safety to account for the size effect and the geometric and
material imperfections.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper included both experimental and theoretical
investigations on the buckling responses of CFFT columns.
The experimental work included the testing of 22 CFFT and RC
707
REFERENCES
AASHTO LRFD, 2009, Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Section 6.9.
ACI Committee 318, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 473 pp.
708
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.