See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282588494

Retrofit of Built-Up Steel Columns: Modeling and Fundamental Behavior

Article in Journal of Bridge Engineering · September 2015

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000808

CITATIONS READS
5 1,450

3 authors, including:

Zhichao Lai Amit H Varma

Fuzhou University Purdue University
74 PUBLICATIONS 909 CITATIONS 330 PUBLICATIONS 4,195 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Light Water Reactor Sustainability, US DOE View project

Post-Fire Assessment of Prestressed Concrete Bridges in Indiana View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhichao Lai on 24 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Retrofit of Built-Up Steel Columns: Modeling and
Fundamental Behavior
Zhichao Lai, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE1; Amit H. Varma, Ph.D., M.ASCE2; and Robert J. Connor, Ph.D.3

Abstract: Cover plates are often added to built-up steel columns as an effective retrofit method for increasing strength. For retrofitted
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

columns, the original member carries all loads, whereas the added cover plates resist only the loads applied after their addition. As a
result, the original member may yield before the added cover plates. Although some specifications provide guidance for evaluating the
capacity of retrofitted columns, the approaches are conservative and do not address the behavior of retrofitted columns if portions of
the original cross section yield first because of preload. In this paper, the behavior and strength of retrofitted built-up columns, as well
as the influence of the cover plates, are evaluated using two analysis approaches: (1) three-dimensional finite-element analysis and (2)
nonlinear inelastic column buckling analysis. Both approaches include the effects of geometric imperfections, column slenderness,
cyclic loading, and temperature gradient on the behavior and strength of retrofitted columns. The failure modes of the retrofitted col-
umns depend on the column slenderness ratio (KL=r). For short columns, the failure mode consists of compression yielding of the entire
cross section, where the existing section yields first, followed by the cover plates. For slender columns, the failure mode consists of
inelastic flexural buckling about the weak axis. The existing section yields first, significantly reducing the flexural stiffness of the retro-
fitted section. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000808. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Retrofit; Strengthening; Built-up; Columns; Hybrid; Steel; Bridges; Design.

Introduction member section to undergo yielding before reaching strength. In this

Existing structures sometimes require retrofitting or strengthening
to satisfy increased strength demands or to repair damage after
extreme events, such as earthquakes and explosions. There are sev-
eral retrofit methods available. The selection of the retrofit method
depends on several factors, including the retrofit objectives; type of
structure and component, defects, or deterioration of existing struc-
ture; loads induced by the retrofit; and available access. The selec-
tion of the retrofit method may also depend on the structure service
life, financial analysis, and contractor expertise (Lai and Patel
2004). The retrofit of steel structures may include the replacement of
existing components or the addition of new components. For exam-
ple, chord members in girders or steel-arch bridges are usually retro-
fitted by adding cover plates to the flanges or webs of the existing
section.
Retrofitting to prevent yielding may not be pragmatic. For exam-
ple, massive components are typically required to strengthen the
original section to prevent yielding. These massive components
introduce significant additional dead load. To improve overall effi-
ciency, it is worthwhile to consider the acceptability of some yield-
ing of the original section before reaching strength. This paper
presents an alternative retrofit method that permits the existing
1
Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Lyles School of Civil Engineering,
Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907 (corresponding author). E-mail:
laiz@purdue.edu
2
Professor, Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: ahvarma@purdue.edu
3
Associate Professor, Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ.,
West Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: rconnor@purdue.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 12, 2014;
approved on May 15, 2015; published online on September 25, 2015.
Discussion period open until February 25, 2016; separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of
Bridge Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
method, cover plates are added to the webs of the existing column.
This method provides a more economical strengthening strategy
than replacing the original structural member or providing massive
new steel components to prevent yielding of the original member.
Retrofitted members are composite in the sense that they are
composed of both existing components and new components (i.e.,
cover plates). Locked-in stresses and strains are present in the exist-
ing components, whereas the entire composite member sustains
additional loads. There is limited research on the behavior and
design of such composite members [the authors were able to find
only one related research project by Shek and Bartlett (2008)]. In
that research, Shek and Bartlett developed a refined numerical anal-
ysis model (RNAM) to investigate the behavior of steel wide-flange
columns strengthened with cover plates added to the flanges. They
evaluated the effects of several parameters on the axial compressive
strength, such as residual stresses, locked-in stresses due to dead
load, yield stress of the original steel, cover-plate area, and cover-
plate aspect ratio. However, the effects of several other parameters
were not addressed, such as the magnitude of geometric imperfec-
tions, cyclic loading, and temperature gradient. Moreover, the
applicability of the RNAM to columns with other cross-section
shapes (other than the W-shapes) was not addressed.
In this paper, the behavior and strength of retrofitted built-up
columns are evaluated using two analysis approaches: (1) three-
dimensional (3D) finite-element analysis using Abaqus and (2) non-
linear inelastic column buckling (NICB) analysis implemented in
MATLAB 2011a. The fundamental behavior of retrofitted columns
was first investigated by analyzing a prototype of a heavy built-up
double-box column strengthened using cover plates on the webs
(as shown in Fig. 1) using the finite-element analysis approach.
The NICB analysis program was then developed and bench-
marked using results from the finite-element analyses. Both analy-
sis approaches included the effects of geometric imperfections, col-
umn slenderness ratio (KL=r), cyclic loading, and temperature

© ASCE 04015054-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04015054

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Cross-section details of the prototype built-up double-box member
gradient on the behavior and strength of the prototype column. The
benchmarked NICB analysis program can be used to (1) further
investigate the effects of several other parameters on the behavior
and strength of the retrofitted prototype member, such as residual
stresses, end moments, locked-in dead load ratio (PLD =Pori , the ratio
of the locked-in dead load PLD to the axial compressive strength of
the existing member Pori ), cover-plate properties (yield stress Fy cpl ,
width bcpl , and thickness tcpl ), and column slenderness ratio (KL=r);
and (2) investigate the behavior of retrofitted columns with other
cross-section shapes, such as box sections, channels, and angles.
Finite-Element Analysis
Prototype Member Details
Fig. 1 shows the cross section of the prototype built-up double-box
member. This type of member is typically used as the compression
chord of long-span steel-arch bridges. As shown, the section con-
sists of eight different types of plate (Plates A–H). Angles are used
to connect the plates into the desired cross-section shape using riv-
ets. The height and width of the cross section are 1,994 mm
(78.5 in.) and 1,505 mm (59.25 in.), respectively. Dimensions of the
plates and angles are included in Fig. 1. The original member was
strengthened using cover plates with a width of 1,270 mm (50 in.)
and a thickness of 86 mm (3.375 in.). These cover plates were
attached to the webs of the existing double-box member along its
entire length, as shown in Fig. 1. The means of attaching the cover
plates were not investigated in this study, but are assumed to be suf-
ficient to transfer the forces between the cover plates and the origi-
nal member. The yield stress (Fy ori ) and elastic modulus (Es ori ) of
the original plates and angles were 344.8 MPa (50 ksi) and 200 GPa
(29,000 ksi), respectively. The yield stress (Fy cpl ) and elastic
© ASCE 04015054-2
J. Bridge Eng., 04015054
modulus (Es cpl ) of the cover plates were 448.2 MPa (65 ksi)
and 200 GPa (29,000 ksi), respectively. Two member lengths
[7,620 mm (300 in.) and 27,940 mm (1,100 in.)] were used to
represent short and slender columns, respectively. The members
were assumed to have pinned-end conditions for buckling about
both the strong and weak axes.
FEM Model Details
Three-dimensional finite-element analysis was performed using
Abaqus. Both the existing member cross section and the cover
plates were modeled using S4R elements. These S4R elements have
(1) six degrees of freedom per node, (2) three section points to com-
pute stress and strain variations through the thickness, and (3)
reduced integration in the plan of the elements. The elements model
thick-shell behavior, but converge to Kirchhoff’s thin-plate bending
theory with reducing thicknesses. For additional details regarding the
choice of these finite elements, see Lai et al. (2014) and Lai and
Varma (2015). The steel material multiaxial behavior was defined
using the von Mises yield surface, associated flow, and kinematic
hardening. An idealized bilinear curve, as shown in Fig. 2(a), was
used to specify the steel uniaxial stress–strain behavior. The hardening
modulus Et was assumed to be equal to Es ori =200 for the existing
member and Es cpl =200 for the cover plates.
Geometric imperfections were incorporated into the models to
initiate buckling of the retrofitted column (Lai et al. 2014). For
each model, the shape of the geometric imperfection was obtained
by conducting eigenvalue buckling analysis of the column, and the
amplitude of the imperfection was assumed to be equal to
L=1; 500. This imperfection amplitude was based on the value
assumed in developing the column-strength curve in AASHTO
(2012). Fig. 2(b) shows the first mode shape from the eigenvalue
J. Bridge Eng.
 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Coupling
constraint
(c) Reference Point A
Fig. 2. (a) Idealized uniaxial stress–strain curve; (b) first buckling eigenmode shape from eigenvalue analysis; (c) example of boundary conditions,
couplings, constraints, and mesh in the FEM model
buckling analysis, which was used to define the shape of the geo-
metric imperfection.
The model change technique in Abaqus was used to add cover
plates to the existing member; this technique enables adding new
parts (e.g., the cover plates) into the existing model (e.g., the proto-
type double-box member) through the shared deformed boundary
while ensuring the added parts remain both stress-free and strain-
free at that point in time. Tie constraints were applied to couple the
cover plates to the existing member, assuming a full bond (compos-
ite action) between these two components.
Coupling constraints were used to model the pinned-end condi-
tions as follows. Two reference points (Reference Point A and
Reference Point B) were defined first. Each of these reference points
was coupled to one of the column ends (i.e., left or right end) using
kinematic coupling constraints, as shown in Fig. 2(c). For example,
the left end was coupled to Reference Point A, and the right end was
coupled to Reference Point B. By applying coupling constraints
between the column end and the corresponding reference point, the
translational (U1 , U2 , and U3 ) and rotational (UR1 , UR2 , and UR3 )
degrees of freedom of the column end were coupled to the corre-
sponding reference point. The pinned-end conditions were then
specified by applying displacement constraints (U1 ¼ U2 ¼ 0,
UR2 ¼ UR3 ¼ 0) at both reference points, and the displacement
constraint U3 ¼ 0 at Reference Point B. Axial loading was then
applied to the column by applying axial force (P) or axial displace-
ment (U3 ) to Reference Point A.
The implicit dynamic analysis method in Abaqus was used to
perform the analysis. This analysis method is unconditionally stable
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 04015054
Reference Point B
Coupling constraint
3 1
because it uses the backward Euler operator as the time integration
method. This analysis method provides reasonable results in spite of
severe (nonductile) failure modes, such as local buckling and frac-
ture. Mesh convergence and sensitivity analyses were performed
to finalize the size and distribution of the finite elements. The
selected mesh size, shown in Fig. 2(c), produces reasonable
results without significant computational effort.
Analysis and Behavior of Retrofitted Columns
As expected, the column slenderness ratio (KL=r) influences the
axial behavior of steel columns. Short columns usually fail because
of compression yielding of the member cross section. Slender
columns are more likely to fail because of global column buckling
(i.e., flexural buckling or flexural torsional buckling). The behavior
and strength of the retrofitted prototype member shown in Fig. 1
were evaluated as both a short column (length of 7,620 mm) and a
long (slender) column (length of 27,940 mm).
For both columns, the locked-in dead load was assumed to be
equal to 88,960 kN (20,000 kips) and was applied to the existing
(original) member cross section first. The magnitude of the locked-
in dead load was established by reviewing the design plans for
compression chord members of a half-through steel-arch bridge an-
alyzed previously by Lai et al. (2013). The compression chord
members of this existing bridge were similar (almost identical) to
the prototype member in terms of the cross section and length. The
sources of the dead load include the self-weight of the chord mem-
bers, bracing systems, etc.
04015054-3 J. Bridge Eng.
 350000 300000
Yielding of cover plates Axial strength
300000 250000

Axial force, kN
250000
Axial force, kN

200000
Yielding of existing section
200000
150000
Yielding of existing section
150000
100000
100000
Addition of cover plates
Addition of cover plates 50000
50000

0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Axial strain (b) Axial strain

350000 300000
Retrofitted column
300000 Existing colulmn
250000
Cover plates
250000
Axial force, kN

Axial force, kN
200000
200000
150000
150000
100000
100000

50000 Retrofitted column 50000

Existing column
Cover plates
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
(c) Axial strain (d) Axial strain

500 400
450 350
400
300
Axial stress, MPa

Axial stress, MPa

350
300 250
250 200
200 150
150
100
100
Existing column Existing column
50 50
Cover plates Cover plates
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
(e) Axial strain (f) Axial strain

Fig. 3. Analysis results of (a and b) the axial force–strain curves; (c and d) the contribution to the axial strength; and (e and f) the axial stress–strain
curves: (a, c, and e) short column; (b, d, and f) slender column

The cover plates were then added to the webs of the prototype
built-up double-box column using the model change technique in
Abaqus. Additional loads were then applied to the retrofitted column
using the displacement control technique. Analysis was terminated
when the target axial displacement was reached. This target displace-
ment was equal to 56 mm for the short column and 66 mm for the
slender column. These target displacement values were selected
based on preliminary analysis results and target equivalent strains.
Behavior of Retrofitted Short Column
The slenderness ratio of the short column in the weak axis (KL=rx )
is 15.6, where the effective length factor K ¼ 1.0 for pinned-end
conditions, L ¼ original column length, and rx ¼ radius of gyration
about the weak axis. Fig. 3(a) shows the axial force–strain curve
obtained from the finite-element analysis. The axial strain (i.e., the
abscissa) was calculated as the ratio of the total axial shortening to
the original column length L. Three points are identified along the
axial force–strain response, where the column stiffness changes sig-
nificantly. These points correspond to the occurrence of the follow-
ing events: (1) the addition of cover plates to the existing member,
(2) the yielding of the existing member cross section, and (3) the
yielding of the cover plates. Fig. 3(a) shows that the column devel-
oped extensive strain hardening after both Events 2 and 3, i.e.,
yielding of the existing section and yielding of the cover plates,
respectively. The final failure was due to the yielding of the entire

© ASCE 04015054-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04015054

 retrofitted cross section. The postyielding behavior was ductile, i.e.,
there was no decrease in axial strength after the yielding of the retro-
fitted (composite) section.
Fig. 3(c) shows the contribution of the existing cross section and
the added cover plates to the axial compressive strength of the retro-
fitted (composite) column. Only 43% of the yield strength of the
added cover plates had been used when the existing cross section
yielded. A value of 96% of the total yield strength of the added
cover plates had been used when they began to yield at portions
close to the compression flange. Fig. 3(e) shows the axial stress–
strain behavior of the existing section and the added cover plates.
The axial stress was estimated as the force resisted by the corre-
sponding component (existing section or cover plates) divided by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the component’s cross-sectional area. Fig. 3(e) indicates that after
the yielding of the existing section, the incremental axial load was
sustained by the added cover plates.
Behavior of Retrofitted Slender Column
The slenderness ratio of the slender column in the weak axis
(KL=rx ) is 57.3. Fig. 3(b) shows the axial force–strain curve
obtained from the finite-element analysis. Three points along the
axial force–strain response where the column stiffness changes sig-
nificantly are indentified. They correspond to the occurrence of the
following three events: (1) the addition of cover plates to the exist-
ing member, (2) the yielding of the existing member cross section,
and (3) the reaching of the axial compressive strength of the retrofit-
ted (composite) column. The column failed owing to flexural buck-
ling about the weak axis. The postbuckling behavior was unstable,
i.e., axial resistance decreased significantly after reaching peak
strength and failure.
Fig. 3(d) shows the contribution of the existing section and the
added cover plates to the total axial strength of the retrofitted (com-
posite) column. Only 40% of the yield strength of the cover plates
was used when the existing section yielded. The cover plates were
still in the elastic range, with only 46% of their yield strength being
used, when the axial strength was reached owing to flexural buck-
ling. Fig. 3(f) shows the axial stress–strain behavior of the existing
section and cover plates, which was determined as explained earlier.
Flexural buckling occured almost immediately after the yielding of
the original section.
Effects of Cyclic Loading
Cyclic loading causes inelastic deformations to accumulate over
subsequent cycles. The cumulative deformations and inelastic dis-
placements may lead to member failure, unacceptable load redis-
tribution, or excessive distortion. However, if no additional inelastic
deformations occur after the first few inelastic cycles, perhaps
because of strain hardening of the material, then the structure is said
to have experienced plastic shakedown (Chen and Han 2007). Two
cyclic analyses were performed to investigate the potential effects
of the cyclic loading on retrofitted columns (one for the short col-
umn and the other for the slender column).
The following four steps were used to conduct both analyses:
1. The existing member was first loaded with 88,960 kN (20,000 kips)
dead load.
2. Cover plates were added using the model change technique,
and the retrofitted (composite) column was loaded until yield-
ing occurred in the existing section (i.e., Py was reached).
3. The retrofitted column was subjected to seven cycles of unload-
ing and reloading. In each cycle, the retrofitted column was
unloaded to the value corresponding to the dead load and then
reloaded to the value corresponding to the summation of the
© ASCE 04015054-5
J. Bridge Eng., 04015054
first yield load (Py ) and a constant load increment (Pinc ). The
load increment (Pinc ) was 4,448 kN (1,000 kips, which is 5% of
the dead load) for the short column and 889.6 kN (200 kips,
which is 1% of the dead load) for the slender column.
4. Upon completion of the seventh cycle, the retrofitted column
was loaded until the specified axial displacement value was
reached. Figs. 4(a and b) show the load amplitude curves used
in the cyclic analysis of the short and slender columns,
respectively.
Comparisons of the axial force–strain curves from the cyclic and
monotonic analyses are shown in Fig. 4(c) for the short column and
in Fig. 4(d) for the slender column. The axial stress–strain curves of
the existing section and the cover plates obtained from the cyclic
analysis are shown in Fig. 4(e) for the short column and in Fig. 4(f)
for the slender column. After the first inelastic cycle, plastic shake-
down occured to the elastic state in both the retrofitted short and
slender columns. The effects of cyclic loading seem to be con-
strained by the plastic shakedown behavior of the retrofitted
columns.
Effects of Temperature Gradient
Structural members in bridges are exposed to temperature changes
across the cross section and member length. These temperature
changes introduce thermal deformations or forces in the structural
members depending on their boundary conditions (Usmani et al.
2001). Uniform temperature change produces thermal strains and
axial deformation (elongation or shortening) if the member ends are
axially unrestrained. Axial forces develop in the member if this ther-
mal expansion is restrained. Temperature gradients through the
cross-section depth produce thermal curvature and bowing if the
member ends are rotationally free. Uniform moments develop in the
member if the thermal curvature is restrained. The following discus-
sion focuses on the effects of positive change (increase) in tempera-
ture. The findings are applicable to negative change (decrease) in
temperature, which is not discussed in detail for brevity.
The effects of temperature changes on the behavior of retrofitted
prototype members (both short and slender columns) were investi-
gated using the FEM models developed previously in this section.
Sequentially coupled thermal-stress analyses were conducted for
both the short and slender columns using the following four steps:
(1) apply the specified thermal gradient to the original member, (2)
apply the locked-in dead load to the original member, (3) add the
cover plates using the model change technique, and (4) apply addi-
tional loading to the retrofitted (composite) column until the speci-
fied axial displacement is reached. Fig. 5(a) shows the temperature
gradient used in the analyses. This gradient was applied through the
cross-section depth of the existing member along its entire length.
As shown, the maximum temperature is 50°C at the top flange, and
the minimum temperature is 0°C at the bottom flange. These tem-
peratures were selected by the authors as conservative (upper
bound) estimates of outdoor temperature variations in the field. A
thermal expansion coefficient of 1:4  105 = C [as per AISC 360-
10 (AISC 2010), Section 4.2.3.1] was used in the analysis.
The retrofitted (composite) column had pinned-end conditions
and was axially and rotationally free (unrestrained). Thermal expan-
sion [as shown in Fig. 5(b)] and bowing [as shown in Fig. 5(c)]
occurred in both the short and slender columns. Comparisons of the
axial force–strain curves for the retrofitted columns with and with-
out thermal gradients are shown in Fig. 5(d) for the short column
and in Fig. 5(e) for the slender column. For members with thermal
gradient, the axial strain represents the mechanical strain due to
axial force only.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Continued to load until Continued to load until
prescribed displacement Yielding prescribed displacement
Yielding Seven loading cycles reached occurred Seven loading cycles reached
4.0 3.5
occurred at Py
at Py

Applied load / dead load

Applied load / dead load 3.5 Py = 0.05PLD 3.0 Py = 0.02PLD
3.0 2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5 0.5
Dead load, PLD Dead load, PLD
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
(a) Time (d) Time
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

350000 300000
300000 250000
Axial force, kN

250000

Axial force, kN
200000
200000
150000
150000
100000
100000
Cyclic 50000 Cyclic
50000
Monotonic Monotonic
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
(b) Axial strain (e) Axial strain

600 400
350
500
Axial stress, MPa
Axial stress, MPa

300
400
250
300 200
150
200
100
Existing Existing column
100
CPLS 50
Cover plates
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
(c) Axial strain (f) Axial strain

Fig. 4. (a and b) Amplitude curves; (c and d) comparisons of axial force–strain curves; (e and f) comparisons of axial stress–strain curves: (a, c, and
e) short column; (b, d, and f) slender column

These comparisons indicate that thermal gradients have a negli- Summary of the Behavior of Retrofitted Columns
gible influence on the axial strength of both short and slender col-
umns. This is reasonable because the lateral displacements and The fundamental behavior of retrofitted (composite) columns is
resulting second-order moments introduced by thermal bowing are summarized based on the analytical results and discussions pre-
relatively small. The maximum lateral displacement was 2.8 mm sented in this section, as follows:
(0.11 in.) for the short column and 33.0 mm (1.3 in.) for the slender 1. Thefailure mode for short columns consistsof compression yield-
column. Similarly, the effects of applying a thermal gradient ing of the entire cross section, where yielding of the existing mem-
about the weak axis will also be negligible because the corre- ber section occurs first, followed by yielding of the cover plates.
sponding lateral displacements and second-order moments will 2. The failure mode for slender columns is flexural buckling about
be small relative to the dimensions of the member. The axial stiff- the weak axis, where yielding of the existing section occurs
ness of columns with thermal gradients was marginally greater first, followed by flexural buckling of the retrofitted column
than the axial stiffness of columns without thermal gradients. before yielding of the added cover plates.
This was probably due to the small tensile strains induced in the 3. The effects of cyclic loading and temperature changes on the
original member by the thermal deformations before additional behavior and strength of retrofitted columns are negligible
axial loads were applied. within the range of parameters investigated.

© ASCE 04015054-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04015054

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. (a) Linearly varying temperature gradient; (b) thermal expansion; (c) thermal bowing; and comparisons of the axial force–strain curve for
(d) a short column and (e) a slender column

Nonlinear Inelastic Column Buckling Analysis
This section presents the development and benchmarking of a
NICB analysis approach and a computer program for predicting
the critical buckling load (Pcr ) of retrofitted (composite) col-
umns. The analysis was based on the numerical integration
approach presented by Chen and Lui (1987), and the program
was implemented in MATLAB 2011a. The computer program
calculated the critical buckling load (Pcr ) for retrofitted (com-
posite) columns using the geometric and material properties
provided by the user. This benchmarked analysis approach (and
program) provides a convenient tool for conducting parametric
studies to further evaluate the effects of geometric imperfec-
tions, residual stresses, locked-in dead load ratio (PLD =Pori ),
cover-plate properties (yield stress Fy cpl , width bcpl , and thick-
ness tcpl ), and column slenderness ratio (KL=r) on the behavior
of retrofitted columns. Other researchers have used similar
approaches to evaluate the behavior and strength of columns
subjected to complex loading and boundary conditions; for
example, Hong and Varma (2010) used this approach to predict
the fire resistance of steel–concrete composite columns.
For the benchmarking analysis, the geometric imperfection was
implemented with sinusoidal shape and magnitude equal to
L=1; 500, which was similar to the imperfection used in the 3D
finite-element analysis presented in the previous section. This sinu-
soidal imperfection is a conservative and reasonable assumption for
inelastic column buckling analysis (Ziemian 2010). Cyclic loading
and temperature gradients were not implemented in this program
because the effects of these two parameters were found to be negligi-
ble. The following subsections present the algorithm and the bench-
marking of the NICB analysis program.
Algorithm
The NICB analysis was conducted in two steps. In the first step, a
locked-in dead load was applied to the existing section. In the sec-
ond step, cover plates were added to the existing section, and addi-
tional axial load was applied to the retrofitted column until failure
(i.e., Pcr was reached). In both steps, the loads (locked-in dead load
and additional load) were applied incrementally to the member. For
each load increment (Pi ), two analysis subroutines were called con-
secutively: (1) the P  M  f subroutine and (2) the D subroutine.
The P  M  f subroutine was implemented to calculate the axial
load-moment-curvature (P  M  f ) relationship for the cross
section using fiber analysis. The D subroutine was implemented to

© ASCE 04015054-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04015054

 calculate converged member deflections (Yk ) using the cross section
P  M  f relationships. External moments (Mk ) including the
secondary moments were calculated using the applied axial load
(Pi ) and the calculated deflections (Yk ). Column failure occurred
when the calculated external moment (Mk ) was greater than the
cross-section moment capacity obtained from the P  M  f subrou-
tine. Details of these two subroutines are presented in the follow-
ing section.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
P 2M2/ Subroutine
The cross section of the retrofitted column was discretized into
layers of fibers, as shown in Fig. 6. For each fiber, the area (Afib ),
moment of inertia with respect to the centroid of the cross section
(Ifib ), and centroid distance (distance from the center of the fiber to
the centroid of the cross section, yfib ) were calculated. The proce-
dures shown in Fig. 7 were then used to obtain the P  M  f

Fig. 6. Cross-section fiber discretization and summation of strains

Fig. 7. Flowchart for the P  M  f subroutine

© ASCE 04015054-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04015054

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. (a) Discretization of the segments along the length; (b) calculation of deflections
relationship for each load increment (Pi ). The P  M  f relation-
ship was obtained when (1) the converged values of curvatures
were found, and (2) the corresponding moments for each load incre-
ment (Pi ) were calculated.
D Subroutine
The retrofitted (composite) member was discretized into n  1
(e.g., 16) segments, as shown in Fig. 8(a). This resulted in a total
of n (n ¼ 17) stations along the length (L), with the length of each
segment (Dx) equal to L=16. The following iterations were then used
to calculate the member deflections for each load increment (Pi ):
• Assume the lateral displacements (Yk i;j ) in iteration j to be
the same as the lateral displacements in the previous itera-
tion j  1. For the first iteration (j ¼ 1), the lateral displace-
ments were assumed to be the same as the converged
deflections from the previous load increment (i.e., the
deflections for Pi1 ), as shown in Fig. 8(a). For the first
load increment (i ¼ 1), the lateral displacements were
assumed to be the same as the sinusoidal imperfections.
• Calculate the external moment (Mk i;j ) at each station
(Station k) as
Mk i;j ¼ Pi yk i;j
• Obtain the curvature at each station ( f k i;j ) using the rela-
tionship calculated from the P  M  f subroutine. Then,
calculate the rotation (u k i;j ) and lateral displacement (yk i;j )
at each station using
u k i;j ¼ u k1 i;j þ f k i;j Dx
yk i;j ¼ yk1 i;j þ u k i;j Dx
However, using these two equations results in Station 1 being
fixed with zero rotation and displacement, and all rotations and dis-
placements from Station 1 to Station n  1 to cumulate at the last
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 04015054
station (i.e., Station n). This complication is illustrated in Fig. 8(b).
As shown, the calculated displacement (yk i;j ) is not the same as the
actual deflection (Yk i;j ); therefore, it is corrected to the actual deflec-
tion (Yk i;j ) as follows:
 
k
Yk i;j ¼ yn i;j  yk i;j
n
• Compare the corrected displacements at each station
(Yk i;j ) with those (Yk i;j1 ) from the previous iteration. If
Yk i;j  Yk i;j1  tolerance, then the converged displace-
ments have been found, i.e., Yk i;j . However, if Yki,j 
Yki,1j > tolerance, then use the corrected displacements
(Yk i;j ) as the initial value for the next iteration (j þ 1) and
continue. The tolerance was assumed to be h/6, 000.
Critical Buckling Load (Pcr )
Once the converged deflections (Yk i;j ) were found, the applied
moment (Mk ) at each station (Station k) was calculated as the prod-
uct of applied axial force (Pi ) and the deflections (Yk i;j ). If the
moment at any station (typically at midheight) had become greater
than the cross-section moment capacity obtained from the corre-
sponding P  M  f subroutine, then the column had failed
because of inelastic column buckling, and Pi was the critical buck-
ling load (Pcr ). Otherwise, the axial load was increased from Pi to
the next load increment Piþ1 , and the two subroutines (P  M  f
and D) presented above were recalled until column failure caused
by inelastic buckling occurred.
Benchmarking
The NICB analysis program was used to predict the behavior and
strength of the two retrofitted columns analyzed in the previous sec-
tion. Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the results from the NICB and
finite-element analyses. Figs. 9(a and b) show comparisons of the
axial force–strain curves for the retrofitted (composite) short and
04015054-9 J. Bridge Eng.
 350000 300000
300000 250000
Axial force, kN 250000
200000

Axial force, kN
200000
150000
150000
100000
100000
50000 50000
NICB NICB
0 FEM FEM
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Axial strain Axial strain
(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

400 400
350 350
300 300
Axial stress, MPa

Axial stress, MPa

250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 NICB 50 NICB
FEM FEM
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
(c) Axial strain (d) Axial strain

500 300
450
250
400
Axial stress, MPa
Axial stress, MPa

350 200
300
250 150
200 100
150
100 50
NICB
50 NICB FEM
FEM 0
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
(e) Axial strain (f) Axial strain

Fig. 9. Comparisons of results from NICB analysis and finite-element analysis: (a and b) axial force–strain curves for the retrofitted column; (c
and d) axial stress–strain curves for the existing column; (e and f) axial stress–strain curves for the cover plates: (a, c, and e) short column; (b, d,
and f) slender column

Fig. 10. Stress and strain distributions at the midspan section from the NICB analysis program

© ASCE 04015054-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04015054

 slender columns, respectively. The axial strains were calculated as
the ratio (D0 =L) of axial shortening (D0 ) to the undeformed column
length (L). Figs. 9(c and d) show comparisons of the axial stress–
strain curves for the cover plates of the retrofitted short and slender
columns, respectively. Figs. 9(e and f) show comparisons of the
axial stress–strain curves for the existing sections of the retrofitted
short and slender columns, respectively. In Figs. 9(c–f), the axial
strains were extracted from the analysis results at the mid-
height of the columns. The comparisons in Figs. 9(a–f) indi-
cate that the NICB analysis program predicts the behavior
and strength of retrofitted columns with an acceptable level
of accuracy when benchmarked against the more detailed
FEM solutions. The NICB analysis program also generates
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the stress and strain distributions at any station; for example,
the stress and strain distributions at the column midheight are
shown in Fig. 10.
Further Work
A number of aspects were not addressed in this study. These include
(1) the effects of several parameters (such as the magnitude of geo-
metric imperfections, residual stresses, end moments, locked-in
dead load ratio, cover plates, and column slenderness) on the behav-
ior of the retrofitted columns and (2) the behavior of retrofitted
columns with other cross-section shapes (such as box sections,
channels, and angles). To address these aspects, comprehensive an-
alytical investigations will be conducted using the benchmarked
NICB analysis program. Appropriate design equations for evaluat-
ing the axial compressive strength of retrofitted columns with vari-
ous cross-section shapes will also be proposed, using the results
from the comprehensive analytical investigations.
Conclusions
Built-up steel columns were strengthened in the weak axis by add-
ing cover plates to the webs. Comprehensive finite-element models
were developed to investigate the fundamental behavior of these
retrofitted columns. Results from the finite-element analysis indi-
cated that failure modes for retrofitted columns depend on the col-
umn slenderness ratio. For short columns, failure occurred because
of yielding of the entire retrofitted cross section, where the existing
section yielded first, followed by the yielding of the added cover
plates. Consequently, the strength of short columns was improved
efficiently by adding cover plates. The full yield strength of the
added cover plates could be achieved before failure. For slender col-
umns, failure occurred due to inelastic column buckling of the retro-
fitted column about the weak axis. The existing section yielded first,
but buckling failure occurred while the cover plates were still in the
elastic range. Only a portion of the yield strength of the added cover
plates could be used. The finite-element analysis results also
© ASCE 04015054-11
View publication stats J. Bridge Eng., 04015054
indicated that the effects of cyclic loading and temperature gradient
were negligible with the range of parameters evaluated.
A NICB analysis program was also developed and then bench-
marked using results from the detailed finite-element analysis. This
program provides an efficient tool to further evaluate the behavior
of retrofitted columns by conducting comprehensive parametric
studies investigating the effects of (1) the magntude of geometric
imperfections, (2) residual stresses, (3) locked-in dead load ratio
(PLD =Pori ), (4) cover-plate properties (yield stress Fy cpl , width bcpl ,
and thickness tcpl ), and (5) column slenderness ratio (KL=r). Results
from these comprehensive parametric studies and the resulting
design equations will be presented in a future paper.
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this paper was funded partially by HDR
Inc. and by Purdue University. The research, findings, and
conclusions presented in this paper belong to the authors.
References
AASHTO. (2012). LRFD bridge design specifications, 6th Ed., Washington,
DC.
Abaqus 6.12 [Computer software]. SIMULIA, Johnston, RI.
AISC. (2010). “Specification for structural steel buildings.” AISC 360-10,
Chicago.
Chen, W. F., and Han, D. (2007). Plasticity for structural engineers, J. Ross
Publishing, Plantation, FL.
Chen, W. F., and Lui, E. M. (1987). Structural stability, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hong, S., and Varma, A. H. (2010). “Predicting column buckling under fire
loading using fundamental section behavior.” J. ASTM Int., 7(1), 156–
178.
Lai, D., and Patel, N., eds. (2004). Structure rehabilitation manual:
Revision No. 9, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Toronto.
Lai, Z., and Varma, A. H. (2015). “Noncompact and slender circular CFT
members: Experimental database, analysis, and design.” J. Constr. Steel
Res., 106(3), 220–223.
Lai, Z., Varma, A. H., Connor, R. J., and Liu, J. (2013). “Retrofit analysis of
steel built-up members for bottom chords of Bayonne bridge.” Bowen
Laboratory Research Rep. (BLRR) No. 2013-02, Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, IN.
Lai, Z., Varma, A. H., and Zhang, K. (2014). “Noncompact and slender rec-
tangular CFT members: Experimental database, analysis, and design.”
J. Constr. Steel Res., 101(10), 455–468.
MATLAB 2011a [Computer software]. MathWorks, Natick, MA.
Shek, K. K.-W., and Bartlett, F. M. (2008). “Analysis and design of rehabili-
tated built-up hybrid steel compression members.” Can. J. Civil Eng.,
35(12), 1375–1387.
Usmani, A. S., Rotter, J. M., Lamont, S., Sanad, A. M., and Gillie, M.
(2001). “Fundamental principles of structural behaviour under thermal
effects.” Fire Safety J., 36(8), 721–744.
Ziemian, R. D., ed. (2010). Guide to stability design criteria for metal struc-
tures, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
J. Bridge Eng.