Accepted Manuscript

Experimental and numerical studies of CFRP tube and steel spiral dual-confined
concrete composite columns under axial impact loading

Liang Huang, Chang Gao, Libo Yan, Tao Yu, Bohumil Kasal

PII: S1359-8368(18)30659-0
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.07.008
Reference: JCOMB 5775

To appear in: Composites Part B

Received Date: 27 February 2018

Revised Date: 23 May 2018
Accepted Date: 10 July 2018

Please cite this article as: Huang L, Gao C, Yan L, Yu T, Kasal B, Experimental and numerical studies
of CFRP tube and steel spiral dual-confined concrete composite columns under axial impact loading,
Composites Part B (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.07.008.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 Experimental and Numerical Studies of CFRP Tube and Steel Spiral Dual-Confined Concrete
2 Composite Columns under Axial Impact Loading

3 Liang Huang1*, Chang Gao1, Libo Yan2,3*, Tao Yu4, and Bohumil Kasal2,3
1
4 College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
2
5 Centre for Light and Environmentally-Friendly Structures, Fraunhofer Wilhelm-Klauditz-Institut WKI, Bienroder Weg
6 54E, Braunschweig 38108, Germany

PT
3
7 Department of Organic and Wood-Based Construction Materials, Technical University of
8
Braunschweig, Hopfengarten 20, 38102 Braunschweig, Germany
4
9 School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia

RI
10 *Corresponding authors: 1) Libo Yan. Email: l.yan@tu-braunschweig.de and libo.yan@wki.fraunhofer.de
11 2) Liang Huang. Email: lianghuanghnu@gmail.com

SC
12 Abstract

13 Compared with conventional steel spiral reinforced concrete (SRC) or concrete filled fiber reinforced polymer

U
14 tube (CFFT) columns, the fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) tube and inner steel spiral reinforcement (SR)
AN
15 dual-confined concrete hybrid columns (shortened as FRP-SR-concrete) showed higher load-bearing capacity

16 and ductility in static compressive loading. In literature, very few studies have considered the dynamic
M

17 behavior of FRP-SR-concrete columns under impact loading when using such hybrid structures under

18 seismic-induced axial dynamic loading. This study investigated the axial impact behavior of carbon
D

19 FRP-SR-concrete (CFRP-SR-concrete) columns subjected to a drop-weight impact test. The experimental

TE

20 parameters considered were CFRP tube thickness, the SR volumetric ratio, height and the weight of the impact

21 hammer of the drop-weight test. The axial impact resistance of conventional CFFT and SRC columns was

22 further used for a comparison. The test results showed that the CFRP-SR-concrete had higher dynamic impact
EP

23 load and better cracking resistance compared with the SRC or CFFT counterparts. The impact resistance of

24 the CFRP-SR-concrete columns was enhanced with an increase in the CFRP tube thickness and the volumetric
C

25 ratio of the SR. Additionally, numerical simulation was performed to predict the failure process and the impact
AC

26 resistance of the CFRP-SR-concrete columns.

27 Keywords: CFRP tube; spiral reinforcement; dual-confinement; axial impact resistance; cracking resistance;
28 ductile failure; dynamic increase factor; finite element analysis
29
30 1. Introduction
31 With a proper design, combination of different materials (hybridization) could enhance the overall
32 performance of the resulting composite material to achieve an economic and efficient utilization of their
33 individual materials [1-4]. During the past two decades, the use of advanced fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)
1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
34 composite materials has gained great acceptance in civil engineering. This is due to their excellent
35 strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight ratios, ease and speed of application, design flexibility and their
36 corrosion resistance [5-7]. In literature, concrete filled FRP tube (CFFT) is a hybrid structure that combines
37 FRP and concrete used for infrastructure and was investigated to construct bridge pier, pole and marine
38 defense pile [8-13]. For example, the axial compressive behavior of CFFT has been studied systematically by
39 Ozbakkaloglu’s group [36-41], i.e. the effects of strength of unconfined concrete [36], type of confinement
40 [37], slenderness ratio of column [38], type of fiber [39], fiber orientation and specimen end condition [40],

PT
41 use of silica fume [41] and even the use of recycled aggregate concrete [42] on the axial compressive behavior
42 of CFFT have been discussed. In practice of civil engineering, normally a small amount of ductile

RI
43 reinforcement (e.g. steel rebar) is added within the concrete core to avoid the brittle failure of the CFFT
44 system due to the brittle behavior of FRP materials, i.e. a typical linear elastic tensile stress-strain response

SC
45 [14-16]. When steel rebar is embedded into the concrete core, the CFFT system becomes the FRP tube
46 confined steel reinforced concrete.
47 Typical representative of FRP tube confined steel reinforced concrete structures, the structural performance

U
48 of FRP tube and steel spiral (SR) dual-confined concrete (FRP-SR-concrete) under static compression loading
AN
49 has been investigated by different scholars [17-22]. Those studies have demonstrated that under static axial
50 compression loading, the load carrying capacity and ductility of the FRP-SR-confined concrete columns were
51 much higher compared to those of conventional steel spiral reinforced concrete (SRC) or CFFT column with a
M

52 single confinement. In the FRP-SR-confined concrete, the dual-confinement provided by the outer FRP tube
53 and the inner SR decreased the dilation behavior of concrete greatly and resulted in a superior confinement
D

54 performance of the concrete [18,22].

55 Regarding the dynamic behavior of FRP and concrete hybrid structures, there are few studies in literature
TE

56 that investigated the impact behavior of CFFT [23,24] or FRP wrapped concrete columns [25],
57 FRP-strengthened RC beams [26,27] and FRP-strengthened steel tube concrete [28-30]. Literature search has
EP

58 shown that nearly no study has considered the dynamic behavior of FRP-SR-concrete under axial impact
59 loading. The only one found focused on the impact behavior of glass FRP (GFRP) tube and SR confined
60 concrete [31]. However, it is well known that compared with GFRP composite materials, normally CFRP
C

61 composites have much higher tensile strength and modulus. The difference in tensile properties can lead to
AC

62 great different impact behavior between GFRP and CFRP [32,33]. The behavior of the CFRP-SR-concrete
63 hybrid structures under axial impact loading is unknown and this should be fully understood for practical
64 application, e.g. protection of bridge piers made of such hybrid columns in seismic-induced axial impact load.
65 Therefore, this study aims to investigate the dynamic behavior of CFRP-SR dual-confined concrete
66 (CFRP-SR-concrete) columns under axial impact loading by a weight-drop test. In this CFRP-SR-concrete
67 system, the concrete core is mainly expected to carry the axial impact load, and the FRP tube and SR confine
68 the lateral dilation of the core concrete to obtain a more ‘pure’ tri-axial compression of the concrete [31] and
69 to improve the impact resistance of the system. Specifically, the objectives of this study are:
70 (1) To compare the axial impact behavior of CFRP-SR-concrete with conventional CFFT and SRC columns
2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
71 by drop-hammer experiments.
72 (2) To investigate how different experimental parameters can affect the axial impact resistance of
73 CFRP-SR-concrete, i.e., the thickness of the outer CFRP tube, the volumetric ratio of inner SR, and the
74 height and the mass of the impact hammer.
75 (3) To simulate the impact failure process and axial impact resistance of the CFRP-SR-confined concrete
76 using finite element (FE) analysis and verify with the experimental results.
77

PT
78 2. Experimental Works
79 2.1 Test matrix

RI
80 To evaluate the axial impact behavior of CFRP-SR-concrete structure, 72 cylindrical column specimens, i.e. 3
81 plain concrete cylinders, 12 CFFT (i.e. no steel) cylinders and 12 SRC cylinders, and 45 CFRP-SR-concrete

SC
82 cylinders, were constructed. The dimension of the concrete core was 150 mm in diameter and 300 mm in
83 height. The four experimental parameters considered were the thickness of the outer CFRP tube (0, 2 and 3
84 CFRP layers, respectively), the volumetric ratio of the SR (0, 1.5 and 3.0%, respectively), the height of the

U
85 impact hammer (2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 m, respectively) and the mass of the impact hammer (458 and 588 kg,
AN
86 respectively). Based on the different experimental parameters, these 72 specimens were divided into 15
87 categories of CFRP-SR-concrete, 4 categories of CFFT, 4 categories of SRC and one category of plain
88 concrete specimen. The details of all the specimens are listed in the Table 1. In the table, all the specimens
M

89 were identified with a specimen code (please refer to the first column in Table 1). For the specimen code, the
90 first letter P with a number indicated the number of CFRP layers, i.e. P0 denoted a specimen without CFRP,
D

91 P2 denoted a specimen with CFRP tube confinement and the thickness of the tube was two-layer CFRP, and
92 P3 denoted a specimen with CFRP tube confinement and the thickness of the tube was three-layer CFRP. The
TE

93 second letter S with a number indicated the spacing of SR (or the volumetric ratio of the SR), i.e. S0 denoted a
94 specimen without inner SR confinement, S25 denoted a specimen with a steel spiral spacing of 25 mm and
EP

95 S50 denoted a specimen with the spiral spacing of 50 mm, respectively. The third number after the “-” symbol
96 in the specimen code indicated the height of the impact hammer, i.e. with 2 for 2 m of impact height, 3 for 3 m
97 of impact height, 4 for 4 m of impact height and 5 for 5.13 m (i.e. it should be pointed out here that the initial
C

98 designated height of the hammer was 5 m. However, due to a test setup error, there was a slight difference for
AC

99 the actual position of the hammer, which was measured with a height of 5.13 m) of impact height, respectively.
100 The last letter of the specimen code denoted the weight of impact hammer, with a for an impact mass of 458
101 kg and b for an impact mass of 588 kg, respectively. For instance, specimen P2S50-3b represented a specimen
102 with a tube thickness of two-layer of CFRP (P2) and a SR spacing of 50 mm (S50) which was subjected to an
103 axial weight-drop impact test with an impact height of 3 m (-3) and an impact hammer mass of 588 kg (b).
104 Table 1 Test matrix of specimens for axial impact test

Hammer Hammer Number of Spacing of SR SR volumetric ratio

*Specimens
mass (kg) height (m) CFRP layer (mm) (%)
P0S0-3a 458 3 0 / /
3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
P0S50-3a 458 3 0 50 1.5
P0S50-4a 458 4 0 50 1.5
P0S25-3a 458 3 0 25 3
P0S25-4a 458 4 0 25 3
P2S0-3a 458 3 2 / /
P2S0-4a 458 4 2 / /
P3S0-3a 458 3 3 / /
P3S0-4a 458 4 3 / /

PT
P2S50-2a 458 2 2 50 1.5
P2S50-3a 458 3 2 50 1.5
P2S50-4a 458 4 2 50 1.5

RI
P2S50-3b 588 3 2 50 1.5
P2S25-3a 458 3 2 25 3

SC
P2S25-4a 458 4 2 25 3
P2S25-5a 458 5 2 25 3
P3S50-3a 458 3 3 50 1.5
P3S50-4a 458 4 3 50 1.5

U
P3S50-5a 458 5 3 50 1.5
AN
P4S50-3b 588 4 3 50 1.5
P3S25-3a 458 3 3 25 3
P3S25-4a 458 4 3 25 3
M

P3S25-5a 458 5 3 25 3
P3S25-4b 588 4 3 25 3
105 * For each category of specimen, three identical specimens were tested.
D

106
TE

107 2.2 Material properties and preparation of specimens

108 For the concrete, the designated compressive strength at 28-day was 40 MPa. The mix proportion for cement:
109 water: fine aggregate: coarse aggregate was 1: 0.385: 1.281: 2.843. The average concrete compressive
EP

110 strength obtained from six 150×150×150 mm3 concrete cubes tested at 28-day was 45.3 MPa (standard
111 deviation (SD): 2.1 MPa) and its average strain at the compressive strength was 0.002. Three plain concrete
C

112 cylinders were constructed as the control specimens. For specimens with steel spirals, the steel rebar with a
113 product code of HPB335 bar (i.e. with the diameter of 6 mm and the yielding strength of 356 MPa) was used
AC

114 to fabricate the spiral stirrups.

115 For specimens with CFRP tube, unidirectional carbon fabrics and JN-C3P epoxy resin provided by the
116 Solid State Civil Technology Development Co., China were used. The mechanical properties of JN-C3P
117 epoxy resin provided by the supplier are listed in Table 2. For CFRP laminate, the thickness of each ply was
118 0.436 mm. Flat coupon tensile tests of the CFRP laminates used in this study were carried out using an MTS
119 machine at Arizona State University, United States. The average elastic modulus and tensile strength of the
120 CFRP laminates obtained from five specimens were 235 GPa (SD: 12 GPa) and 4,245 MPa (SD: 108 MPa),
121 respectively.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

122 Table 2 Properties of JN-C3P epoxy resin provided by supplier

Compressive
Tensile Flexural Shear strength Tensile elastic Elongation
strength
strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa) modulus (GPa) (%)
(MPa)
55 88 75 23 3.5 3.0
123
124 The CFRP tubes were fabricated using a hand lay-up process, following the procedure introduced in Ref.

PT
125 [17]. More details for the fabrication process of CFFTs can be found in Ref. [43]. The unidirectional carbon
126 fiber oriented in the hoop direction of the PVC mould, namely, the hoop direction of the CFRP tube. The

RI
127 overlapping length of all the CFRP tubes used was one quarter perimeter of the concrete cylinder. Both ends
128 of the CFRP tubes were strengthened by additional CFRP sheets with a width of 25 mm and a thickness of 2
129 layers of CFRP to avoid premature failure at the CFRP tube ends. The tubes were then dried and cured at

SC
130 room temperature for 24 hours, and then the cured CFRP tubes were demoulded from the PVC mould and
131 naturally dried for another 7 days before concrete casting. The SR cages were installed inside the CFRP tube

U
132 which were placed with one end of the tube was glued on a smooth wooden plate, then concrete was casted,
133 poured and compacted by a vibrator. The concrete cylinders were cured at the room temperature (20±3) ℃,
AN
134 the specimens were covered by thermal insulation cloth and watered three times per day for 28 days. For all
135 the specimens, a high-strength steel plate with a thickness of 5 mm and a diameter of 150 mm (equal to the
M

136 diameter of the concrete) was then bonded to the impacted end (the upper end) of the specimens for testing.
137 The whole fabrication procedure of CFRP-SR-concrete is illustrated in Fig. 1.
D
TE
EP

138
C

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

AC

140 Fig. 1. Fabrication of CFRP-SR-confined concrete: (a) fabrication of CFRP-SR-tube (both with epoxy
141 applied); (b) reinforcing both ends of the CFRP tube with CFRP strips; (c) casting concrete; and (d) upper end
142 bonded with a steel plate
143
144 2.3 Test instrumentation

145 High-capacity drop-hammer equipment with the maximum hammer height of 16 m and the maximum impact

146 energy of 130 kJ located at Hunan University, China was used for the axial impact test. The impact hammer

147 consisted of one 198 kg weight of hammer and fourteen 65 kg adjustable weights, to a maximum impact

148 hammer mass of 1108 kg. The total impact energy was adjusted by changing the weight or changing drop
5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

149 height. The schematic view and the real view of the drop-weight impact machine are shown in Fig. 2. The

150 Motion Scope M2 high-speed video camera with a laser-triggered switch was used to record the integrated

151 impact process. A laser triggered switch was applied to turn on all the devices to record all the impacting

152 process when the hammer fell and passed through the laser, which can also be used to record the passing time

153 for calculating the velocity of the hammer.

PT
RI
U SC
154
155 (a) (b)
AN
156 Fig. 2. Impact test setup: (a) actual setup; (b) schematic view of the setup

157 For each specimen, nine hoop strain gauges and nine axial strain gauges with a gauge length of 20 mm were
M

158 installed at different locations of the outer CFRP tube to record the hoop and axial strains of the tube,

159 respectively. Two gauges with a gauge length of 5 mm were mounted at the middle height of the inner SR to
D

160 measure the tensile strain of the spiral steel. In addition, one gauge along the axial direction was mounted at
TE

161 the middle position of the hammer neck to record the strain of the hammer. The details of the location of the

162 strain gauges in a CFRP-SR-concrete column are shown in Fig. 3.

C EP
AC

163
164 Fig. 3 Location distribution of the strain gauges on the GFRP tube and the SR

165
166 3. Results and Discussion

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
167 3.1 Failure modes
168 The plain concrete cylinders showed a fragile failure under the axial impact loading and were fully crushed
169 into small pieces and powder. As displayed in Fig 4(a)-(c), the CFRP-confined concrete specimen (i.e. CFFT
170 without steel) showed an inverted “X” cone failure mode at the upper middle height of the cylinders where the
171 CFRP bands were damaged and separated from the concrete core. Due to the suddenness of the impact load
172 and the propagation and reduction of the impact waves along the longitudinal axis of the specimens, the
173 failure thus occurred mainly at the upper half of the cylinders. Unlike the plain concrete under axial impact,

PT
174 the crushing of the entire concrete cylinder was avoided due to the CFRP tube confinement. The CFFT
175 specimens P2S0-3a and P2S0-4a under the different impact hammer heights showed the similar “X” cone

RI
176 failure mode, as illustrated in Fig 4(a) and (b) respectively. The failure modes of CFFT specimens with
177 different CFRP tube thickness (2 and 3 layers, respectively) under the same hammer height of 4 m and the

SC
178 same hammer mass of 458 kg are shown in Fig 4(b) and (c) respectively. It shows clearly that the CFRP
179 confinement restrained the core concrete significantly (especially below the ¾ height of the column) to avoid
180 destructive impact failure of plain concrete core, and the specimen failed more thorough with a thicker CFRP

U
181 confinement.
AN
M
D
TE

182
183 (a) (b) (c)
C EP
AC

184
185 (d) (e) (f)
186 Fig. 4. Failure Modes of (a) P2S0-3a with 2-layer CFRP and hammer height of 3 m, (b) P2S0-4a with 2-layer
187 CFRP and hammer height of 4 m, (c) P3S0-4a with 3-layer CFRP and hammer height of 4 m, (d) P0S25-4a
188 with 25 mm spacing distance of SR and hammer height of 4 m, (e) P0S50-4a with 50 mm spacing distance of
189 SR and hammer height of 4 m and (f) P0S25-3a with 25 mm spacing distance of SR and hammer height of 3
190 m
191
192 Fig 4(d)-(f) shows the axial impact failure modes of the SR-confined concrete (i.e. SRC) cylinders with
7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
193 different testing parameters. For all the SRC specimens, the upper cover of cylinders smashed with exposure
194 of inner spiral stirrups and parts of the concrete core also crushed. Compared with the specimen P0S25-4a
195 with 3% of SR volumetric ratio (Fig 4(d)), the specimen P0S50-4a with 1.5% of SR (Fig 4(e)) experienced
196 more severe damage in the concrete. The comparison indicates that a decreasing of SR spacing or increasing
197 of SR volumetric volume improves the cracking resistance of the SRC specimen under axial impact loading
198 effectively. Fig 4(d) and (f) show the failure modes of SRC with 3% of SR volumetric ratio under 4 m and 3
199 m of hammer height, respectively. It is observed that an increase of the impact height from 3 m to 4 m did not

PT
200 show a significant effect on the failure mode of the SRC.
201 Fig 5 shows the failure modes of CFRP and SR dual-confined concrete (i.e. CFRP-SR-concrete) specimens

RI
202 with different experimental parameters. In general, the failure modes of the CFRP-SR-concrete can be divided
203 into three categories: (I) CFRP tube ruptured with the core concrete intact, (II) CFRP tube ruptured with the

SC
204 core concrete slightly crushed and sunken concrete surface, and (III) CFRP tube ruptured with the core
205 concrete crushed in the “X” shape pattern.
206

U
AN
M
D
TE

207
208 (a) (b)
C EP
AC

209
210 (c) (d) (e)
211 Fig. 5. Failure Modes of CFRP-SR-confined concrete (a) P2S25-4a with 2-layer CFRP, 25 mm spacing
212 distance of SR, 4 m of hammer height and 458 kg of hammer mass, (b) P3S25-4a with 3-layer CFRP, 25mm
213 spacing distance of SR, 4m of hammer height and 458kg of hammer mass, (c) P2S50-4a with 2-layer CFRP,
214 50mm spacing distance of SR, 4m of hammer height and 458kg of hammer mass,(d) P2S25-5a with 2-layer
215 CFRP, 25 mm spacing distance of SR, 5 m of hammer height and 458kg of hammer mass, and (e) P3S25-4b
216 with 3-layer CFRP, 25 mm spacing distance of SR, 4 m of hammer height and 588 kg of hammer mass
8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
217
218 The failure modes of P2S25-4a and P3S25-4a are shown in Fig 5(a) and (b), which presented the similar
219 failure mode (I) for these two specimens with different CFRP thickness. The comparison of the failure modes
220 of the specimens P2S25-4a and P2S25-5a shown in Fig 5(a) and (c) indicates the influence of volumetric ratio
221 of SR on the failure mode. Fig 5(a) and (d) show the specimens with 2-layer CFRP, 3% volumetric ratio of SR
222 and 458 kg of hammer mass but 4 m and 5.13 m of hammer height, respectively, whose failure modes were
223 type (I) and (II), respectively. The effect of impact hammer mass on the failure mode of CFRP-SR-concrete

PT
224 can be observed by the comparison of Fig 5(b) and (e). The specimen P3S50-4b demonstrated the failure
225 mode (III) with more thorough damage of the concrete.

RI
226 The comparison of the failure modes of the specimens shown in Fig 4 and Fig 5 indicated that in general,
227 the failure of CFFT, SRC and the CFRP-SRC-concrete mainly occurred at the upper height of the column

SC
228 under axial impact loading. The concrete core of the CFFT and the SRC specimens presented a brittle
229 crushing failure and mainly showed an “X” shape failure. Compared with CFFT or SRC specimens with a
230 single confinement, the CFRP-SR-concrete with dual-confinement exhibited better cracking resistance of the

U
231 concrete under axial impact loading.
AN
232
233 3.2 Impact stress time histories
234 The tested results for all specimens are listed in Table 3. The impact velocity was the velocity of hammer after
M

235 the impact and it was calculated based on the passing time of the hammer recorded by dynamic data
236 acquisition device and the original height of the hammer. The impact load was defined as the impact energy
D

237 which depended on the adjustable mass and height of the hammer according to the energy conservation law.
238 The impact stress vs. time history curves show the impact resistant capacity of the different specimens. The
TE

239 impact force histories were recorded by a dynamic force transducer mounted at the hammer head and then was
240 processed to stress histories to have a clear presentation of impact behavior of the CFRP-SR-concrete. Figs
EP

241 6-9 show the impact stress vs. time history curves of plain concrete, CFRP-confined concrete (i.e. CFFT),
242 SR-confined concrete (i.e. SRC) and CFRP-SR-confined concrete (i.e. FRP-SR-concrete) specimens under
243 different impact energies (i.e. by means of change of the impact height and impact hammer mass), which were
C

244 calculated based on the Work-Energy Theorem. Figs 7-9 show that there is a similarity among CFFT, SRC
AC

245 and CFRP-SR-concrete specimens in their impact stress vs. time histories, which can be approximately
246 divided into three stages: an initial rapid ascending stage to the first peak stress followed by a sharp drop to
247 2/3 of the first peak stress, another rapid ascending stage to the maximum impact stress followed by the
248 second sharp descending stage, and the last attenuation stage to failure. For the plain concrete, the maximum
249 impact stress occurred at the first peak load and the impact duration was about 0.002 second, as illustrated in
250 Fig 6.

251 Table 3 Tested average results for all specimens

No. Impact velocity (m/s) Impact energy (kJ) Maximum impact force (kN)

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
P0S0-3a 7.52 12.94 956
P0S50-3a 7.47 12.79 1686
P0S50-4a 8.76 17.57 1760
P0S25-3a 7.52 12.94 2305
P0S25-4a 8.70 17.33 2331
P2S0-3a 7.52 12.97 2155
P2S0-4a 8.70 17.33 2288
P3S0-3a 7.53 12.98 2637

PT
P3S0-4a 8.61 17.05 2676
P2S50-2a 6.03 8.32 2041
P2S50-3a 7.51 12.90 2150

RI
P2S50-4a 8.34 16.05 2300
P2S50-3b 7.52 16.61 2541

SC
P2S25-3a 7.42 12.61 2749
P2S25-4a 8.65 17.30 2782
P2S25-5a 9.82 22.08 2821
P3S50-3a 7.45 12.72 2748

U
P3S50-4a 8.71 17.58 2833
AN
P3S50-5a 9.88 22.34 2773
P4S50-3b 8.80 22.78 3087
P3S25-3a 7.44 12.85 2995
M

P3S25-4a 8.65 17.15 3035

P3S25-5a 9.78 21.91 2965
P3S25-4b 8.68 17.53 2748
D

252
253 The impact stress vs. time histories of 2-layer and 3-layer CFFT specimen under the different impact
TE

254 energies are given in Fig 6 with the similar tendency. We hypothesized that the second rapid increase in the
255 curves up to the maximum impact force was attributed to the confinement effect provided by the CFRP tube.
EP

256 After the second sharp drop of the curves, the impact forces of both CFFT specimens reduced to a very low
257 level (very close to zero), indicating a brittle failure of the specimen. This purely brittle failure can be
258 interpreted by the elastic linear stress-strain characteristics of CFRP composite materials. Once the CFRP
C

259 ruptured, the confinement effect provided by the CFRP to the concrete lost immediately, and the concrete core
AC

260 was fully crushed. Fig 6 also shows that the increase of the CFRP tube thickness led to the enhancement both
261 in the first peak stress and the maximum impact stress of specimens according to the curves of specimens
262 P3S0-3a and P2S0-3a or P3S0-4a and P2S0-4a. Besides, the increasing of impact height was slightly
263 influenced the impact stress-time behavior, and the extent of influence changed with different CFRP
264 confinement ratios. However, compared with the plain concrete P0S0-3a, the maximum impact stress was
265 improved significantly due to the CFRP confinement.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
180

160
P3S0-4a
140 P3S0-3a
P2S0-3a

Impact stress(MPa)
120
P2S0-4a
100 P0S0-3a
80

60

PT
40

20

RI
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Time(s)
266
Fig. 6. Impact force-time histories of plain concrete cylinders

SC
267
268
269 In Fig 7, the impact stress vs. time histories of SR-confined concrete (SRC) specimens with 1.5% and 3%
270 of volumetric ratio are given. Unlike the CFFT specimens shown in Fig 6, where the impact stress reduced
271
U
rapidly after reached the maximum impact stress, those of the SRC specimens can maintain at much higher
AN
272 values for around 0.003 second after reaching the peak impact stress. Afterwards, the impact stress decreased
273 gradually and progressively to the end of the impact time histories. The progressive reduction in the impact
274 force of the SRC specimens along the increase of impact time can be interpreted by the confinement provided
M

275 by the ductile SR made from the steel rebar. Fig 7 shows that an increase of the SR volumetric ratio from 1.5%
276 to 3.0% led to an increase of the maximum impact load and an increase of impact height slightly affected the
D

277 maximum impact stress of the SRC specimens.

TE

278
180
EP

160
P0S25-3a
140 P0S25-4a
P0S50-3a
Impact stress(MPa)

120
P0S50-4a
C

100 P0S0-3a
AC

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Time(s)
279
280 Fig. 7. Impact stress-time histories of plain concrete and SRC specimens
281 The impact stress vs. time histories of CFRP-SR-confined concrete (CFRP-SR-concrete) specimens are

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
282 presented in Fig 8. Unlike the CFFT or SRC specimens, the CFRP-SR-concrete showed much higher
283 maximum impact stress and fluctuated with more quantities of humps, after the high confinement stage the
284 dual confined specimens exhibited more relatively stable plateau. The lasting fluctuation stage around the
285 maximum impact stress attributed to multiple interaction of the dual confinement. Compared with CFFT or
286 SRC, the CFRP-SR-concrete expressed much larger maximum impact stress and higher energy dissipation.
287 The comparisons of Fig 8(a) vs. Fig 8(c) and Fig 8(b) vs. Fig 8(d) indicated that the maximum impact force
288 was increased with an increase of the CFRP tube thickness from 2 to 3 layer of carbon fabrics. Comparisons

PT
289 of Fig 8(a) vs. Fig 8(d) and Fig 8(b) vs. Fig 8(c) indicated that the increase of the volumetric ratio of SR
290 resulted in an increase of the fluctuation period around the maximum impact stress, indicating that the

RI
291 CFRP-SR-concrete specimens provided more resistance to the axial impact loading.
292 Compared the Figs 7-8 and Fig 8 and the results listed in Table 3, the CFRP-SR-concrete showed excellent

SC
293 impact resistant capability, which was superior to CFFT or SRC with a single confinement. The less the
294 spacing of the SR or the thicker the CFRP tube, the better the axial impact resistance of the
295 CFRP-SR-concrete is.

U
180
180
160
AN
CFRP-SR 160
CFRP-SR
140 Confined Concrete 140 Confined concrete
P2S50-4a
Impact stress(MPa)

P3S25-4b
Impact stress(MPa)

120
P2S50-2a 120
P3S25-3a
100 P2S50-3b 100 P3S25-4a
P2S50-3a
M

80 80
P3S25-5a

60 60

40 40
D

20
20
0
0 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Time(s)
TE

Time(s)
a) CFRP tube thickness of 2-layer &SR b) CFRP tube thickness of 3-layer &SR
volumetric ratio of 1.5% volumetric ratio of 3%
180
180
EP

160
CFRP-SR 160
CFRP-SR
140 Confined Concrete
Confined Concrete
Impact stress(MPa)

140
P3S50-4b
120 P2S25-5a
P3S50-3a
120
Impact stress(MPa)

P2S25-3a
100 P3S50-4a 100
P2S25-4a
P3S50-5a
C

80 80

60 60
AC

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Time(s) Time(s)

c) CFRP tube thickness of 3-layer &SR d) CFRP tube thickness of 2-layer &SR
volumetric ratio of 1.5% volumetric ratio of 3%
Fig. 8 Impact stress vs. time histories of CFRP-SR-concrete
296
297
298 3.3 Impact strain vs. time histories

299 Fig 9 illustrates the strain vs. time histories recorded from the outer CFRP tube for FPR-confined concrete

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

300 (i.e. CFFT) specimens, i.e. 2-layer and 3-layer CFFT specimens subjected to 3 m and 4 m height impact and

301 458 kg of hammer weight. In the figure, the positive strains represented tensile strains and the negative strains

302 represented the compressive strains recorded for the outer FRP tubes. These curves were used to estimate the

303 impact deformation of the specimens subjected to axial impact loading. In the figure, each curve was

304 presented with different letters, i.e. “CA” denoted axial strain, “CH” denoted hoop strain, “T”, “M” and “B”

PT
305 denoted the strain at top, medium and bottom of the CFRP tube, respectively, e.g., CA-T represented the axial

306 strain at the top of a CFFT cylinder. For all the CFFT specimens, the hoop strains increased sharply firstly and

RI
307 then changed rapidly because the core concrete bore the axial impact load firstly, the CFRP tube started to

308 restrain until the core concrete expanded laterally to a certain extent and the confinement of the CFRP tube

SC
309 was then fully activated. The hoop strain at the top of the CFRP tube reduced sharply firstly, and then the

310 strain at the medium height of the specimens and finally the strain at the bottom height of the specimens

U
311 emerged eventually due to the propagation of impact waves, leading to the largest strains at the top of
AN
312 cylinders, and the smallest strains at the bottom of cylinders. The strain curves of each gauge location reached

313 the peak strains in a very short time, and then the curves fell back to a certain value due to the existed
M

314 deformation. The strain curves of each gauge location reached the peak strains in a very short time, and then

315 all the strains fell back to a certain value due to the existed deformation. The ultimate axial strain and hoop
D

316 rupture strain were highly sensitive to the test setups and instrumentation arrangement, e.g., strain gauges or
TE

317 deformation measuring devices [3,44]. In addition, the recorded hoop rupture strains would be highly

318 influenced by the number and placement of strain gauges. The statistical results of CFRP-wrapped concrete
EP

319 indicated that the ultimate strain tested by strain gauges showed larger scatter behaviour, besides the hoop

320 strain at the overlapping regions of FRP-confined concrete turned out lower than others at else positions [3].
C

321 However, based on the actual experimental conditions and the popularity of strain gauge tested methods, the

322 study adopted the strain gauges test setups and placed them as reasonable and adequate as possible. It should
AC

323 be pointed out here that the recorded hoop rupture strains of the specimens in this study were lower than that

324 of CFRP material tensile strains obtained from flat coupon tensile test. The considerable reasons might be

325 given as follows: (1) the enormous and sudden deformation of specimens, (2) the possible existing

326 eccentricity of impact load or local rupture of cylinders, (3) as is well-known, the hoop rupture strain of

327 FRP-confined concrete is generally lower than the ultimate tensile strain of FRP, which is highly influenced

328 by the strength plain concrete strength or FRP type [45].

329
13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.016
0.016

0.012
P2S0-3a P2S0-4a
CA-T 0.012 CA-T
CH-T
CH-T
0.008 CA-M 0.008 CA-M
CH-M
CH-M
Strain (mm/mm)

Strain (mm/mm)
CA-B
0.004 CA-B 0.004 CH-B
CH-B

0 0

-0.004 -0.004

-0.008 -0.008

-0.012 -0.012

PT
-0.016 -0.016
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
Time (s) Time (s)

a) 2-layer CFFT with 3 m of hammer height b) 2-layer CFFT with 4 m of hammer height
0.016 0.016

RI
P3S0-3a P3S0-4a
0.012 CA-T 0.012
CA-T
CH-T CH-T
0.008 CA-M 0.008 CA-M
CH-M CH-M

SC
Strain (mm/mm)

Strain (mm/mm)
CA-B CA-B
0.004 CH-B 0.004
CH-B

0 0

-0.004 -0.004

U
-0.008 -0.008

-0.012 -0.012
AN
-0.016 -0.016
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
Time (s) Time (s)
c) 3-layer CFFT with 3 m of hammer height d) 3-layer CFFT with 4 m of hammer height
Fig. 9 Time histories responses of strains of CFFT specimens
M

330
331 Fig 10 illustrates the strain vs. time histories of SRC specimens with 1.5% and 3% volumetric ratio and
D

332 subjected to 3 m or 4 m of hammer height and 458 kg of hammer weight impact, in where “T”, “M” and “B”
333 denoted strain at the top, medium and bottom of cylinders, respectively, e.g., S-T denoted the strain at the top
TE

334 height of an SRC cylinder. All the hoop strains at the top and bottom of the SRC specimens were larger than
335 0.005, the strains at the top of cylinders even exceeded 0.01. The tested yielding strain of the steel rebar was
EP

336 0.002, so the SR yielded but undamaged. The SRC with 3% volumetric ratio showed a larger deformation
337 than that of SRC with 1.5% volumetric ratio. Like the CFFT, the strains at the top height of the cylinders
338 occurred firstly, then the strains at the medium of cylinders and the strains at the bottom of cylinders occurred,
C

339 and the strains at the top of cylinders were the largest, the difference between CFFT and the SRC was the
AC

340 ductile characteristic of SR, while FRP composites showed elastic brittle characteristics.

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0.05 0.05
P0S25-3a P0S25-4a
0.04 S-T 0.04 S-T
S-M S-M
S-B S-B
Strain (mm/mm)

0.03

Strain (mm/mm)
0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01

PT
0 0

-0.01 -0.01
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
Time (s) Time (s)

RI
a) 3% SR volumetric ratio of 3 m with b) 3% SR volumetric ratio of 4 m with
hammer height hammer height

SC
0.05 0.05

P0S50-3a P0S50-4a
0.04 S-T 0.04 S-T
S-M S-M

U
S-B S-B
Strain (mm/mm)

0.03
Strain (mm/mm)

0.03
AN
0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01
M

0 0

-0.01 -0.01
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
D

Time (s) Time (s)

c) 1.5% SR volumetric ratio of 3 m with d) 1.5% SR volumetric ratio of 4 m with
TE

hammer height hammer height

Fig. 10 Time histories responses of strains of SR-confined concrete
341
EP

342 Fig 11 shows the strain vs. time histories of CFRP-SR-confined concrete (CFRP-SR-concrete) specimens. In
343 the case of dual-confinement, the CFRP and the SR still maintained their own restrained characteristics, and
344 the strains at the top height of the cylinders were the largest. However, the strains of SR were much larger
C

345 than those of the CFRP at the same height position of cylinders. In addition, the strains at failure remained
AC

346 constant at a high level, indicating the ductile deformation of the CFRP-SR-specimen due to the
347 dual-confinement.
348

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.02 0.02
P2S25-4a P2S25-3a
CA-T CA-T
CH-T
CH-T
CA-M
0.01 CA-M 0.01
CH-M
CH-M

Strain (mm/mm)
CA-B
Strain (mm/mm)

CA-B
CH-B
CH-B
S-T
S-T
S-M
0 S-M 0
S-B
S-B

-0.01 -0.01

PT
-0.02 -0.02
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015

RI
Time (s) Time (s)
a) Specimen P2S25-4a b) Specimen P2S25-3a
0.02 0.02
P2S50-2a P3S25-3a

SC
CA-T CA-T
CH-T CH-T
CA-M
0.01 CA-M
CH-M 0.01 CH-M
Strain (mm/mm)

Strain (mm/mm)

CA-B CA-B
CH-B CH-B
S-T

U
S-T
S-M S-M
0
S-B S-B
0
AN
-0.01

-0.01
M

-0.02
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
Time (s) Time (s)
c) Specimen P2S50-2a d) Specimen P3S25-3a
D

0.02 0.02
P3S50-3a P2S50-3b
CA-T CA-T
TE

CH-T CH-T
0.01 CA-M 0.01 CA-M
CH-M CH-M
Strain (mm/mm)

Strain (mm/mm)

CA-B CA-B
CH-B CH-B
S-T S-T
0 S-M 0 S-M
EP

S-B S-B

-0.01 -0.01
C

-0.02 -0.02
AC

0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
Time (s) Time (s)
e) Specimen P3S50-3a f) Specimen P3S50-3b
Fig. 11 Typical time histories responses of strains of CFRP-SR-confined concrete

3.4 Axial stress-strain behavior

The axial stress-strain curves of some tested specimens under axial impact loading are given in

Fig 12. In the figure, each curve was represented with different letters, i.e. “CA” denoted axial

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

strain, “CH” denoted hoop strain, “T”, “M” and “B” denoted the strain at top, medium and

bottom of the CFRP tube, respectively. Figure 12 shows that for all the specimens, both their

axial and hoop strains recorded by the strain gauges mounted at the top of the cylinder were

significantly larger than the corresponding strains recorded by the strain gauges mounted at

the bottom of the cylinder. The data here was in accordance with the failure modes displayed

PT
in Section 3.1, namely, the failure of all the specimens under axial impact loading mainly

occurred at the upper half-height of the specimens. Figure 12 also shows that unlike the typical

RI
bilinear stress-strain responses of FRP confined concrete under static axial compressive

loading, all the FRP confined concrete (i.e. pure CFFT and CFRP-SR-concrete) under axial

SC
impact loading exhibited nonlinearity.
180 180

U
160 160

140 140
Impact Stress (MPa)

Impact Stress (MPa)

AN
120 120

100 100

80 P2S0-3a 80 P2S25-3a
CH-T CH-T
M

60 CA-T 60
CA-T
CH-M CH-M
40
40
CA-M CA-M
CH-B 20 CH-B
20
CT-B CA-B
D

0 0
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
Hoop Strain Axial Strain Hoop Strain
Axial Strain
TE

a) Specimen P2S0-3a b) Specimen P2S25-3a

180 180
EP

160 160

140 140
Impact Stress (MPa)
Impact Stress (MPa)

120 120
C

100 100

80 P3S25-3a 80 P3S50-3a
CH-T CH-T
AC

60 CA-T 60
CA-T
CH-M 40
CH-M
40
CA-M CA-M
20 CH-B 20 CH-B
CA-B CA-B
0 0
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
Axial Strain Hoop Strain Axial Strain Hoop Strain

c) Specimen P3S25-3a d) Specimen P3S50-3a

Fig. 12 Typical axial stress-strain curves of specimens

349
350 3.5 Influential factors on impact behavior
17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
351 3.5.1 Number of CFRP layers
352 The effect of number of CFRP layers (i.e. tube thickness) on CFRP-confined concrete (CFFT) specimens can
353 be represented in Fig. 13. As can be seen, that the initial ascending stages of the specimens were mostly
354 coincident, indicating that the effect of CFRP thickness on the elastic modulus of the concrete was
355 insignificant. Fig. 13(a) shows that the axial impact load carrying capacity of the CFFT increased with an
356 increase of the number of carbon fabric layers under different hammer heights. The force increments of
357 3-layer CFFT and 2-layer CFFT specimens impacted at 3 m and 4 m hammer height are 22.4% and 17%,

PT
358 respectively. Fig 13(b) shows that the number of CFRP layers resulted in more pronounced improvement on
359 the axial impact load for CFRP-SR-concrete cylinders, i.e., for CFRP-SR-concrete with 1.5% volumetric ratio

RI
360 of SR, the load increments of 3-layer and 2-layer CFRP-SR-concrete specimens subjected to 3 m and 4 m
361 hammer height are 27.9% and 20.9%, respectively, while for CFRP-SR-concrete with 3% of SR, the

SC
362 increments are 7.6% and 9.1%, respectively. Therefore, increasing CFRP tube thickness resulted in a more
363 pronounced enhancement on the axial impact load for CFRP-SR-concrete specimens with a smaller SR
364 volumetric ratio.

U
365
AN
180

160
CFRP Confined Concrete
M

140
P2S0-3a
P2S0-4a
Impact stress(MPa)

120
P3S0-3a
D

100
P3S0-4a
80
TE

60

40
EP

20

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
C

366 Time(s)

367 (a) 2-layer and 3-layer CFRP-confined concrete under 3 m and 4 m hammer heights
AC

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
180

160

Impact Stress (MPa)

140

1.5% SR, no CFRP

2-Layer CFRP, no SR

PT
120
3% SR, no CFRP
3-Layer CFRP, no SR
1.5% SR, 2-Layer CFRP
100
3% SR, 2-Layer CFRP

RI
1.5% SR, 3-Layer CFRP
3% SR, 3-Layer CFRP
80

SC
5 10 15 20 25 30
368 Impact Energy (kJ)
369 (b) 0-, 2- and 3-layer CFRP-confined concrete with 1.5% and 3% SR
Fig. 13 Influence of CFRP thickness on impact stress

U
370
AN
371
372 3.5.2 Effect of SR volumetric ratio
373 Fig. 14 shows the effect of SR volumetric ratio on the axial impact behavior of SRC specimens. Fig 14(a)
M

374 indicates that the impact behavior of all the SRC specimens were similar. Specifically, all the curves were
375 mostly parallel after the second sharp drop in the peak stress, indicating an almost equal stiffness of all the
D

376 specimens. The SRC specimen with 3% SR presented larger maximum impact stress than that with 1.5% SR,
377 the impact stress increments are 36.7% and 32.4% respectively in case of 3 m and 4 m hammer height. For
TE

378 CFRP-SR-concrete, as illustrated in Fig 14(b), with an increase of CFRP layers, the increase of SR volumetric
379 ratios showed fewer increase on the impact stress of the CFRP-SR-concrete specimens.
EP

180

160 SR Confined Concrete

P0S25-3a
C

140
P0S25-4a
Impact Stress (MPa)

120 P0S50-3a
AC

100 P0S50-4a

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
380 Time (s)

381 (a) 1.5% and 3% SRC under 3 m and 4 m hammer heights

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
180

160

Impact Stress (MPa)

140

PT
120
2-layer CFRP, no SR
3-layer CFRP, no SR
2-layer CFRP, 1.5% SR

RI
100
3-layer CFRP, 1.5% SR
2-layer CFRP, 3% SR
3-layer CFRP, 3% SR
80

SC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
382 Impact Height (m)
383 (b) 0, 1.5% and 3% SRC with 2-layer and 3-layer CFRP
384 Figure 14: Influence of SR volumetric ratio on impact stress

U
385
AN
386
387 3.5.3 Effect of impact energy and hammer mass
388 As illustrated in Fig 15, the axial impact stress of CFFT and SRC specimens were improved with an increase
M

389 in impact energy. While for CFRP-SR-concrete, the impact stress carrying capacity increased firstly to a
390 certain peak value then decreased slightly. This phenomenon implied that there was critical impact energy to
D

391 drive the largest impact load carrying capacity.

180
TE

160
EP
Impact Stress (MPa)

140
C

1.5% SR, no CFRP

120 2-Layer CFRP, no SR
3% SR, no CFRP
AC

3-Layer CFRP, no SR
1.5% SR, 2-Layer CFRP
100
3% SR, 2-Layer CFRP
1.5% SR, 3-Layer CFRP
3% SR, 3-Layer CFRP
80
5 10 15 20 25 30
392 Impact Energy (kJ)
393 Fig. 15. Influence of impact energy on impact behavior
394
395 Fig 16 shows the effect of hammer weight on the maximum impact stress of the specimens. As can be seen,
396 the impact stress of CFRP-SR-concrete was improved with an increase of the hammer weight, and the
20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
397 increments of 3-layer CFRP-3% SR-concrete, 2-layer CFRP-1.5% SR- concrete and 3-layer CFRP-1.5%
398 SR-concrete are 4.3%, 11.3% and 10.5%, respectively. The authors would like to point out, however, that
399 these comparisons are based on limited number of tests and show the trends.

180

170

PT
Impact Stress (MPa)

160

150

RI
140

SC
130

1.5% SR, 2-layer CFRP

120 1.5% SR, 3-layer CFRP
3% SR, 3-layer CFRP

U
110
400 450 500 550 600 650
AN
Hammer Weight (kg)
400
401 Fig. 16. Influence of Hammer Weight
402
M

403 3.6 Discussion on DIF of axial peak force

404 Most engineering materials show higher strength under dynamic loading than that at static loading [31,34].
D

405 The dynamic increase factor (DIF), i.e., the ratio of dynamic to static strength, was used to estimate the
406 difference of CFFT, SRC and the CFRP-SR-concrete specimens at axial impact and static compression
TE

407 loading. If Pd is defined as the dynamic peak force (i.e. maximum impact force) and Ps is defined the static
408 peak force (maximum axial compressive force, all the values of Ps listed in Table 4 were obtained from the
EP

409 previous study from the authors [17]). The DIF-P is defined as:
410 (DIF)p= Pd / Ps (1)
411 The DIF values of CFRP-SR-concrete specimens are calculated and listed in Table 4. Overall, the DIF values
C

412 of the CFRP-SR-concrete specimens with different CFRP thickness, SR volumetric ratio, impact height and
AC

413 impact mass mainly ranged from 1.1 to 1.2, which implied that the DIF of CFRP-SR-concrete specimen were
414 not sensitive to the change of CFRP thickness and SR volumetric ratio. The DIF value became larger with an
415 increase of the impact energy, while under the same impact energy, the DIF value was smaller with an
416 increase of the CFRP thickness and the SR volumetric ratio.
417 For CFRP-SR-confined concrete subjected to axial impact loading, response at very high strain rates is
418 often sought. At high strain rates, the apparent axial compressive strength of CFRP-SR-confined concrete
419 increased as listed in Table 4. Knowledge of DIF is important in the design and analysis of CFRP-SR-confined
420 concrete structures for explosives safety. For FRP confined concrete, it is well known that the FRP tube in
421 confined concrete specimens may rupture at a strain far lower than its rupture strain determined from the flat
422 coupon tensile. Therefore, FRP efficiency factor [43] is normally used to quantify this phenomenon.
423 Experimental results show that the FRP efficiency factors of FRP confined steel reinforced concrete obtained
21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
424 from axial impact loading were lower than that obtained from static compressive loading, implying that FRP
425 confinement performance under impact load are not as good as static loads, which provided less confinement
426 to the concrete with increase in FRP thickness, as explained by Pham and Hao [25].
427
428 Table 4 Dynamic increase factor of peak force of CFRP-SR-concrete
Specimens Pd (kN) Ps (kN) DIF Impact energy (kJ)
P2S50-2a 2041 1881 1.09 8.32

PT
P2S50-3a 2150 1881 1.14 12.90
P2S50-4a 2300 1881 1.22 16.05
P2S50-3b 2541 1881 1.35 16.61

RI
P2S25-3a 2749 2455 1.12 12.61
P2S25-4a 2782 2455 1.13 17.30
P2S25-5a 2821 2455 1.15 22.08

SC
P3S50-3a 2748 2475 1.11 12.72
P3S50-4a 2833 2475 1.14 17.58
P3S50-5a 2773 2475 1.12 22.34

U
P4S50-3b 2995 2698 1.11 12.85
P3S25-3a 3035 2698 1.13 17.15
AN
P3S25-4a 2965 2698 1.10 21.91
P3S25-5a 2748 2698 1.02 17.53
429
M

430 4. FE analysis of CFRP-SR-concrete

431 Finite Element (FE) analysis using ANSYS/LS-DYNA program was used to simulate the axial impact
D

432 behavior of CFRP-SR-concrete specimens subjected to hamper-drop impact. In literature, there are some
433 existing models developed numerically for FRP-confined concrete, e.g. Gambarelli et al. [46] and Nisticò et al.
TE

434 [47] modelled carbon fibres using nonlinear truss elements, and epoxy and concrete were modelled using
435 microplane-based constitutive las and 3D finite elements, which confirmed the predictability of the numerical
EP

436 microplane-based approach for FRP-confined concrete. For the model of CFRP-SR-concrete, the material
437 models of CFRP and steel used were the plasticity dynamic reinforcement model called
438 *MAT_PLASTIC-KINEMATIC, and the core concrete was 111# element
C

439 (*MAT_JOHNSON_HOLMQUIST_CONCRETE) in LS-DYNA program which was used widely. The

AC

440 spatial discretization of concrete, spiral steel, steel plate and drop hammer was performed by applying
441 eight-node solid finite elements, and that of CFRP was applied four-node thin shell finite element. The change
442 of CFRP thickness was realized by defining different thickness of the thin shell finite element. The chosen
443 CFRP material parameters included the elastic modulus which was 235 GPa, ultimate tensile strength which
444 was 4,245 MPa, the density which was 1.8 g/cm3 and the thickness which was 0.11 mm, respectively. The
445 material parameters of concrete and steel used for the simulation are given in Table 5 and 6, respectively. The
446 HJC model, which was proposed by Holmquist et al. [35] for concrete material model under large deformation
447 and high strain rates, was used in the section. More details on the axial impact simulation can be found in Ref.
448 [35]. Table 5 includes the strength indexes A, B, C, Smax, G, N, the damage parameters D1, D2, EFMIN, the
22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
449 pressure parameters Pcrush, µcrush, K1, K2, K3, Plock, µlock, T, and the static compressive pressure fc’=0.045 GPa,
450 the tensile strength T=0.00334 GPa and the corresponding density ρ0=2440 kg/m3. The steel plate, hammer
451 and supports were taken as rigid bodies. Shell solid element SHELL163 was selected to simulate CFRP tube,
452 solid elements of SOLID164 was selected to simulate concrete, SR and the impact hammer. The FE model of
453 CFRP-SR-concrete with an impact hammer is given in Fig. 17.
454 Table 5 The material parameters of concrete (HJC model)

PT
/ ∙ / A B C smax G/Pa D1 D2 N

2.4e3 45e6 0.79 1.60 0.007 7.0 11.63e9 0.035 1.0 0.61

RI
EFMIN T/Pa Pcrush/Pa Plock/Pa K1 K2 K3 E

3.34e6 9.67e6 6.2e-4 0.8e9 85e9 -171e9 208e9 35.7e9

SC
0.01 0.098

455
456 Table 6 The material parameters of steel

ρo / kg ⋅ m−3 E / GPa
U
Poisson Ratio σ y / MPa ET /GPa
AN
7800 210 0.3 356 1.0
457
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

458
459 Fig. 17. FE model of CFRP-SR-confined concrete
460
461 Fig 18 shows the typical impact failure process of CFRP-SR-concrete based on numerical simulation and the
462 experimental failure mode. The simulated failure process of the concrete core was in accordance with the
463 experimental failure process, namely, the rupture occurred at 4 ms duration at the middle-upper height of the
464 cylinder and final failure occurred at 6 ms with obconical failure pattern. The simulated obconical failure was
465 like the experimental failure mode illustrated in Fig 18. The experimental and simulated load time histories of

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
466 CFRP-SR-concrete with different CFRP layers, SR volumetric ratio, impact height and mass are presented in
467 Figs. 19-21. In general, the simulated curves showed similar tendency with the experimental results, an initial
468 ascending stage, a fluctuated stage around the maximum impact stress and the last descending stage. The
469 comparison in the experimental impact stress and the simulated values of CFRP-SR-concrete specimens are
470 listed in Table 8. As can be seen, the difference in the impact load for P2S25-2a, P2S25-3a and P2S50-4a is
471 8.2%, 12.2% and 8.3%, respectively, indicating the proper agreement between the experimental and simulated
472 impact load for those CFRP-SR-concrete specimens.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
473
M
D
TE
C EP

474
AC

475 Fig. 18. Typical simulated failed process of CFRP-SR-confined concrete

476

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
140

120 P2S50-3a Simulative Value

P2S50-3a Tested Value
100

Impact Stress (MPa)

80

60

PT
40

20

RI
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
477 Time (s)

SC
478 (a) Tested vs. simulative impact stress of P2S50-3a
160

U
140
P2S50-4a Simulative Value
AN
120 P2S50-4a Tested Value
Impact Stress (MPa)

100
M

80

60
D

40

20
TE

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
479 Time (s)
EP

480 (b) Tested vs. simulative impact stress of P2S50-4a

481 Fig. 19. Peak impact load comparison between tested value and simulated value: (a) Tested vs. simulative
482 impact force of P2S50-3a, and (b) Tested vs. simulative impact force of P2S50-4a
C

483
484
AC

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
180

160
P3S50-4a Simulative Value
140
P2S50-4a Simulative Value
P3S50-4a Tested Value

Impact Stress (MPa)

120
P2S50-4a Tested Value
100

80

PT
60

40

RI
20

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
485 Time (s)

SC
486 Fig 20. Impact stress comparison between tested and simulated stress of P2S50-4a and P3S50-4a
180

U
160
P2S25-4a Simulative Value
P2S50-4a Simulative Value
AN
140
P2S25-4a Tested Value
120 P2S50-4a Tested Value

100
M

80

60
D

40
TE

20

0
487 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
EP

488 Fig 21. Impact stress comparison between tested and simulated stress of P2S25-4a and P2S50-4a
489
490
C

491 Table 8 Comparison between experimental impact load and simulated values of CFRP-SR-concrete
492 specimens
AC

Specimen P2S50-2a P2S50-3a P2S14a

Maximum Simulated value 125 137 141
impact stress Tested value 116 122 130
(MPa) Difference (%) 8.2 12.2 8.3
493
494

495 5. Conclusions

496 In this paper, the dynamic behavior of carbon FRP and spiral reinforcement dual confined concrete

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

497 (CFRP-SR-concrete) columns under axial impact loading were studied experimentally and numerically. The

498 experimental parameters included the input impact energy by adjusting the height and weight of the hammer,

499 and thickness of CFRP tube and the volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement. The experimental results of

500 CFRP-SR-concrete were also compared with the concrete filled FRP tube (CFFT) and spiral reinforced

501 concrete (SRC) columns. This study revealed that:

PT
502 1. Under axial impact loading, the CFRP-SR-concrete columns with dual confinement demonstrate higher

503 impact load resistance, better cracking resistance and more ductile failure mode when comparing with

RI
504 CFFT or SRC column with the single confinement.

505 2. Compared with CFFT or SRC specimens, the impact stress time histories of CFRP-SR-concrete exhibit

SC
506 higher level of stress after the maximum impact loads and show more durable maintenance at the high

507 stress level, which in turn results in much larger energy dissipation capacity under axial impact.

U
508 3. The impact resistance of CFRP-SR-concrete is enhanced remarkably due to an increase of numbers of
AN
509 CFRP layers and the volumetric ratio of SR. The impact height and impact hammer weight also affect the

510 failure patterns of the CFRP-SR-concrete pronouncedly.

M

511 4. The dynamic increase factors (DIF) of CFRP-SR-concrete under axial impact test are not so sensitive with

512 an increase of CFRP thickness and SR volumetric ratio. For CFRP-SR-concrete, the FRP provides less
D

513 confinement to the concrete in axial impact loading compared with that in static axial compression
TE

514 loading. The DIF increases with an increase of the impact energy.

515 5. The FE model provides good agreement with the experimental results based on the maximum impact
EP

516 stress evaluation, overall tendency of load time histories, impact failure process and the final failure

517 modes of the CFRP-SR-concrete specimens.

C

518 Overall, this study confirmed that the CFRP-SR-concrete hybrid system with outer CFRP tube and inner SR

519 dual confinement is quite promising for structural impact resistant design showing desirable
AC

520 energy-dissipating capability and cracking resistance. In the future study, the effects of different experimental

521 parameters such as size effect and slenderness ratio of the specimens on axial impact and even lateral impact

522 responses need to be evaluated.

523

524 Acknowledgement

525 The research was funded by the Natural Sciences Foundation of Hunan Province, China (Grant

526 No. 2015JJ3032). The authors appreciate the support received from Mr. Huaian Zhang (former graduate
27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

527 student), who conducted the tensile test of carbon FRP composites at Arizona State University, United States.

528
529 References
530 [1] Teng J.G., Yu T., Wong Y.L., Dong S.L. Hybrid FRP-concrete-steel tubular columns: concept and
531 behavior. Construction and Building Materials. 2007;21(4):846-854.
532 [2] Ozbakkaloglu T., Xie T. Geopolymer concrete-filled FRP tubes: Behavior of circular and square columns
533 under axial compression. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2016;96:215-230.

PT
534 [3] Ozbakkaloglu T., Lim J.C. Axial compressive behavior of FRP-confined concrete: Experimental test
535 database and a new-design-oriented model. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2013;55:607-634.
536 [4] Huang L., Yin P., Yan L., Kasal B. Behavior of hybrid GFRP-perforated-steel tube-encased concrete

RI
537 column under uniaxial compression. Composite Structures. 2015;142:313-324.
538 [5] Ozbakkaloglu T, Idris Y. Flexural behavior of FRP-HSC-steel composite beams. Thin-walled Structures.
539 2014;80:207-216

SC
540 [6] Huang L., Gao C., Yan L., Kasal B., Ma G. and Tan H. Confinement models of GFRP-confined
541 concrete: Statisticalanalysis and unified stress-strain models. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
542 Composites. 2016;35(11):867-891.

U
543 [7] Ozbakkaloglu T. Behavior of square and rectangular ultra high-strength concrete-filled FRP tubes under
544 axial compression. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2013;54:97-111.
AN
545 [8] Gao C., Huang L., Yan L., Kasal B., Li W. Behavior of glass and carbon FRP tube encased recycled
546 aggregate concrete with recycled clay brick aggregate. Composite Structures. 2016;155:245-254.
547 [9] Fam A., Rizkalla S.H. Flexural behaviour of concrete filled fibre reinforced polymer circular tubes.
M

548 Journal of Composites for Construction. 2002;6(2):123–132.

549 [10] Yan L., Chouw N. Natural FRP tube confined fibre reinforced concrete under pure axial compression: A
550 comparison with glass/carbon FRP. Thin-Walled Structures. 2014;82:159-169.
D

551 [11] Yan L., Chouw N. Experimental study of flax FRP tube encased coir fibre reinforced concrete composite
552 column. Construction and Building Materials. 2013;40:1118-1127.
TE

553 [12] Yan L., Chouw N. Compressive and flexural behaviour and theoretical analysis of flax fibre reinforced
554 polymer tube encased coir fibre reinforced concrete composite. Materials & Design. 2013;52:801-811.
555 [13] Yu T., Teng J.G. Design of concrete-filled FRP tubular columns: provisions in the Chinese technical
556 code for infrastructure application of FRP composites. Journal of Composites for Construction.
EP

557 2010;15(3): 451-461.

558 [14] ACI. 440.2 R-08: Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for
559 strengthening concrete structures. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich, USA. 2008a.
C

560 [15] Canadian Standard Association(CSA). Design and construction of building components with
561 fibre-reinforced polymers. 2002;CSA-S806-02, Rexdale BD, Toronto.
AC

562 [16] Canadian Standard Association(CSA). Canadian highway bridge design code. 2006；CAN/CSA-S6-06,
563 Toronto.
564 [17] Yin P., Huang L., Yan L., Zhu D. Compressive behavior of concrete confined by CFRP and transverse
565 spiral reinforcement. Part A: experimental study. Materials and Structures 2016;49(3):1001-1011.
566 [18] Huang L., Sun X., Yan L., Zhu D. Compressive behavior of concrete confined with GFRP tubes and steel
567 spirals. Polymers. 2015;7:851-875.
568 [19] Lee J.Y., Yi C.K., Jeong H.S., Kim S.W., Kim J.K. Compressive response of concrete confined with steel
569 spirals and FRP composites. Journal of Composite Materials. 2010;44:481-504.
570 [20] Rousakis T.C., Karabinis A.I. Adequately FRP confined reinforced concrete columns under axial
571 compressive monotonic or cyclic loading. Materials and Structures. 2012;45: 957–975.
572 [21] De Luca A., Nardone F., Matta F., Nanni A., Lignola G.P., Prota A. Structural evaluation of full-scale
573 FRP-confined reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Composites for Construction. 2010;15:112–123.
574 [22] Fitzwilliam J., Bisby L.A. Slenderness effects on circular CFRP confined reinforced concrete columns.
28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
575 Journal of Composites for Construction. 2010;14(3), 0000073.
576 [23] Qasrawi Y., Heffernan P.T., Fam A. Dynamic behaviour of concrete filled FRP tubes subjected to impact
577 loading. Engineering Structures. 2015; 100:212-225.
578 [24] Dong F., Chouw N. Dynamic and static properties of flax fibre reinforced polymer tube confined coir
579 fibre reinforced concrete. Journal of Composite Materials. 2014;48(13):1595-1610.
580 [25] Pham T.M., Hong Hao. Axial Impact Resistance of FRP-Confined Concrete. Journal of Composites for
581 Construction. 2016;21(2): 04016088.
582 [26] Pham T.M., Hao, H. Behavior of fibre-reinforced polymer-strengthened reinforced concrete beams under
583 static and impact loads. International Journal of Protective Structures 2017;8(1): 3-24.
584 [27] Pham T.M., Hao, H. Impact behavior of FRP-strengthened RC beams without stirrups. Journal of

PT
585 Composites for Construction 2016;20(4), 04016011.
586 [28] Alam M.I, Fawzia S., Zhao X.L., Remennikov A.M., Bambach M.R., Elchalakani M. Performance and
587 dynamic behaviour of FRP strengthened CFST members subjected to lateral impact. Engineering

RI
588 Structures. 2017;147:160-176.
589 [29] Xiao Y., Shen Y.L. Impact behaviors of CFT and CFRP confined CFT stub columns. Journal of
590 Composites for Construction. 2012;16(6):662-670.
591 [30] Alam M.I., Fawzia S., Zhao X.L. Numerical investigation of CFRP strengthened full scale CFST

SC
592 columns subjected to vehicular impact. Engineering Structures. 2016;126:292-310.
593 [31] Huang L., Sun X., Yan L., Kasal B. Impact behavior of concrete columns confined by both GFRP tube
594 and steel spiral reinforcement. Construction and Building Materials. 2017;131:438-448.
595 [32] Yan L., Chouw N. Crashworthiness characteristics of flax fibre reinforced epoxy tubes for energy

U
596 absorption application. Materials & Design 2013;51:629-640.
597 [33] Yan L., Chouw, N., Jayaraman K. Lateral crushing of empty and polyurethane-foam filled natural flax
AN
598 fabric reinforced epoxy composite tubes. Composites Part B: Engineering 2014; 63, 15-26.
599 [34] Yan L, Chouw N., Jayaraman K. Effect of triggering and polyurethane foam-filler on axial crushing of
600 natural flax/epoxy composite tubes. Materials & Design 2014;56:528-541
601 [35] T.J. Holomquist, G.R. Johnson, W.H. Cook. A computational constitutive model for concrete subjective
M

602 to large strains, high strain rates, and high pressures. Jackson N., Dickert S. The 14th International
603 Symposium on Ballistics. USA: American Defense Prepareness Association. 1993: 591-600.
604 [36] T. Ozbakkaloglu, T. Vincent. Axial compressive behavior of circular high-strength concrete-filled FRP
D

605 tubes J Compos Constr, 18 (2) (2013), p. 04013037

606 [37] T. Vincent, T. Ozbakkaloglu. Influence of concrete strength and confinement method on axial behavior of
TE

607 FRP confined hifh and ultra-high strength concrete. Composites Part B 50 (2013), 413-428
608 [38] T. Vincent, T. Ozbakkaloglu. Influence of slenderness on stress-strain behabior of concrete filled FRP
609 tubes: experimental study. J Compos Constr 19(1) (2014), 04014029
EP

610 [39] T. Vincent, T. Ozbakkaloglu. Influence of fiber type on behavior of HSC-filled FRP tubes under concentric
611 compression. Appl Mech Mater 438 (2014) 240-245
612 [40] T. Vincent, T. Ozbakkaloglu. Influence of fiber orientation and specimen end condition on axial
C

613 compressive behavior of FRP confined concrete. Constr Build Mater 47 (2015) 814-826
AC

614 [41] J.C. Lim, T. Ozbakkaloglu. Influence of silica fume on stress-strain behavior of FRP-confined HSC. Constr
615 Build Mater 63 (2014) 11-24.
616 [42] T. Xie, T. Ozbakkaloglu. Behavior of recycled aggregate concrete-filled basalt and carbon FRP tubes.
617 Constr Build Mate 105 (2016) 132-143.
618 [43] T. Ozbakkaloglu. Compressive behavior of concrete-filled FRP tube columns: Assessment of critical
619 column parameters. Eng. Struct. 51 (2013) 188-199.
620 [44] Gholampour A., T. Ozbakkaloglu. Extended constitutive model for FRP-confined concrete in circular
621 sections. Advanced Materials Research. 2017;1142:349-354.
622 [45] Jian C. Lim, T. Ozbakkaloglu. Hoop strains in FRP-confined concrete columns: experimental
623 observations. Materials and Structures. 2015;48:2839-2854.

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
624 [46] S. Gambarelli, N. Nisticò, J. Ozbolt. Numerical analysis of compressed concrete columns confined with
625 CFRP: Microplane based approach. Composites Part B. 2014;67:303-312.
626 [47] N. Nisticò, J. Ozbolt., G. Polimanti. Modeling of reinforced concrete beams strengthened in shear with
627 CFRP: Microplane-based approach. Composites Part B. 2016;90:351-364.
628
629

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

30