Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Axial compressive behavior on steel tube-retrofitted circular RC short

columns with grout under preload
Xiao Hu a, Zhenlin Chen a, *, Xiangbo Bu b
a
State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu, China
b
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain

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

Keywords: Steel tubes are widely used in strengthening reinforced concrete (RC) columns. However, in engineering con­
Steel tube struction, the effect of preload on the original RC column on the performance of strengthened RC column has not
Retrofitting mostly considered. Therefore this paper tests five circular short columns under axial compression—three steel
Preload
tube-strengthened RC columns with preload, one strengthened RC column with no preload, and one normal RC-
Finite element analysis
Compressive
to study compressive performance of steel tube-retrofitted circular RC short columns under various preload
Strength levels. Moreover, the verified finite element numerical model is established using ABAQUS software to stimulate
the behavior of the retrofitted columns. The extended parametric studies is conducted based on the thickness of
steel tube, yield strength of steel tube, and strength of grout under preload, in addition to preload level itself. A
practical design method is proposed and compared with four existing design codes to predict the axial
compressive ultimate strength of the retrofitted column under preload.

1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete (RC) columns are the most critical components
in building concrete structures. However during building construction
and use, owing to design errors, artificial defects, the deterioration of the
load carrying components, durability, aging, workability or climatic
conditions, the changes in the use of functions that result in additional
live loads (the facility from residential to public or storage for example)
or upgrading of the current code requirements (seismic for example), RC
columns may suffer from insufficient bearing capacity, and thus need to
be strengthened. Consequently, steel-jacketing reinforcement stands out
among many reinforcement methods because of its remarkable retro­
fitting performance, economic benefits and ease of construction on site
(Fig. 1). In case of this method, two steel plates are rolled into the
semicircles with a perimeter a bit larger than that of the original circular
RC column. Then the two rolled steel plates surround the original col­
umn, and the two vertical seams are welded on site to form a complete
steel tube enclosing the RC column. Thereafter, the gap between the
original concrete and steel tube is filled with infill concrete. Finally, the
reinforced layer becomes an integration with the original concrete
column.
A series of studies on the steel-jacketing reinforcement method have
been reported. Early, Priestley et al. [1,2], Chai et al. [3,4], Ramiroz
et al. [5], Xiao et al. [6,7] and other researchers [8–10] make many
contributions to the steel-jacketing reinforcement method for RC
column.
In the past ten years, extensive work has also been done in the
experimental and analytical areas on concrete columns retrofitted with
steel jackets. The main endeavor of R.A. Khushnood et al. [11] is to
experimentally compare the effects of upgrading the load carrying ca­
pacity and ductility between circular and square steel tube-retrofitted
RC columns under axial compression. The conclusion is that percent­
age increase in axial strength and ductility of circular retrofitted col­
umns is more than that of square columns due to lack of stress
concentration in the corners. K. Abedi et al. [12] adopt rectified square
steel jacket initially presented by Xiao [7] to improve the hysteretic
behavior of RC column, results indicate that the energy dissipation and
shear strength at rectified steel jacket strengthened column are
enhanced significantly by increasing the thickness of steel plate stiff­
eners and stiffened height of column. However, geometric shape of
stiffeners does not have a drastic effect on the hysteretic behavior of
retrofitted column. Lu et al. [13,14] choose self-compacting concrete
(recycle aggregate concrete) as a filling instead of normal cement before
and steel tubes to retrofit the RC columns. The experimental results

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: leafun@163.com (Z. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.05.079
Received 8 January 2021; Received in revised form 21 April 2021; Accepted 23 May 2021
Available online 16 June 2021
2352-0124/© 2021 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Hu et al.
show that the axial compressive bearing capacity of the strengthened
columns increases by 2.19–3.98 times. A series of eccentric compression
performance tests and numerical calculations on RC columns retrofitted
by circular steel tubes and square steel tubes are undertaken [15], the
results also indicate that reducing the eccentricity or increasing the
thickness of the steel tube can significantly improve the bearing capacity
and ductility of the retrofitted columns. Conversely, as the self-
compacting concrete strength increases, the ductility of the specimen
decreases. The study of Muhammad Fawad et al. [16] involves the ret­
rofitting of a damaged structure. Assessment and observation of the steel
jacketing strengthened bridge are carried out by finite element simu­
lating calculation .The result shows the crack width reduces significantly
and comes within the allowable limit of 0.3 mm. Choi et al. [17,18]
introduce two new steel jacketing methods with transvers pre-pressure
externally applied around steel tubes and multi-layer steel tubes. It
concludes that the new steel jacketing techniques could not only in­
crease the ultimate strength, but also bond strength and ductility of the
column specimens. Fabio Di Trapani et al. [19] focus on obtaining
minimization of retrofitting costs by optimizing the position and the
amount of steel jacketing retrofitting. It shows that the use of engi­
neering optimization methods can be effective to limit retrofitting costs
without a substantial modification of structural safety. From the above
literature, most aspects associated with steel jacketing method have
been well explored, while other minor issues have not been still deeply
treated. One example of these issues is the potential fact of preload-
effect.
During retrofitting construction, most existing RC columns subject to
preloads caused by the upper floor or other influencing factors. Such
preload of the original RC column has a certain effect on the perfor­
mance of the retrofitted column. However, there is still limited pub­
lished literature on the research of the preload-effect on the mechanical
properties of steel tube-retrofitted RC columns. In Abhishek Jodawat’s
research [20], the behavior of strengthened RC column with steel
jacketing is studied experimentally and the behavior of strengthened
column is compared with preloaded columns with 85% of failure load
with retrofitting done to it. The increment in axial compressive strength
for intact retrofitted columns is 22%, but the strength of the preloaded
retrofitted columns is only 6%. He et al. and Cai et al. [21–23] find the
effect of the increased preload level (lesser than 0.5) on the axial
compressive behavior of the retrofitted column is ignored; while an
increased preload level (greater than 0.5) could decrease the eccentric
compressive ultimate strength. Actually, for the industrial and civil
buildings, usually the general dead load does not exceed 50% of the
ultimate bearing capacity of the column. That is, the preload level of the
strengthened column does not exceed the level of 0.5 without complete
unloading, but sometimes the dead load does not comply with the re­
quirements of the code for some certain old buildings. That means the
preload level can exceed 0.5 and even almost reach the ultimate load.
Fig. 1. Steel tube retrofitted RC columns:(a) Steel tube retrofitted circular RC column; (b) Steel tube retrofitted rectangular RC column.
2501
Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519
However, the literature on the influence of excessive preload level on the
compressive performance is scarce.
The purpose of this paper is to study the axial compressive behavior
of steel tube-retrofitted circular RC short columns with preload through
experimental and numerical investigation. Thus, the tests based on
concentric compressive load are conducted on one original RC column,
one steel tube-retrofitted RC column with no preload, and three steel
tube-retrofitted RC columns with preload and the experimental results
have been analyzed and compared. The preload level as a variable only
considered among the tested specimens. The obtained test results are
employed in a parallel numerical simulation program for the validation
of a finite element model. An extensive parametric study is undertaken
to extend the available results over a wide range of preload levels. In
addition to the preload, the effects of preloading with various other
parameters, such as thickness of steel tube, yield strength of steel tube,
and strength of grout, on the performance of the retrofitted columns are
further elucidated. All the test-derived data, together with the experi­
mental results of related literature, are compared with the predictions
from four existing design codes [24–27] and the proposed design
method on the strength assessment of steel tube-retrofitted circular RC
short columns.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test specimens
Five short columns including one original RC column (A), one steel
tube retrofitted RC column with no preload (B), and three steel tube
retrofitted RC columns with different preload levels (C-0.3, C-0.6, C-0.9)
were manufactured and tested. The detailed dimensions, parameters,
test results and material properties of the specimens are displayed in
Fig. 2, Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
An original RC column was built and then strengthened with a steel
tube and the grout. For the three preloaded specimens, the post-
tensioned pre-stressing construction technique was implemented in
the machinery factory to impart preload conditions on the specimens, as
shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. The compressive preloads of the concrete
were monitored by tensioning the pre-inserted rebar, which could be
calculated as 120kN, 239kN, and 359kN respectively, and then pre-
stressed original RC column is placed in the middle of the steel tube
with two protective covers locating over each anchorage (Fig. 3 (d)).
Generally, in terms of the preloading, there is difference between
preloaded column in the test and the preloaded column in the actual
situation. The reason is the post-tensioned pre-stressing construction
technique is adopted to apply the preload to the original RC column; it
may causes the specimen to be loaded unevenly, such as the pressure at
the end of the column due to the both anchorages, which is a bit smaller
than that in the middle of the column. However when the specimen is
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Fig. 2. Details and dimensions of specimens (Unit: mm):(a) Cross-section of RC column; (b) Elevation of RC column; (c) Cross-section of steel tube retrofitted column;
(d) Elevation of steel tube retrofitted column.

adopt the post-tensioned pre-stressing construction technique to apply

Table 1
the preload.
Parameters and test results of specimens.
Specimen t l n Ppre Pu (kN) Strength
(mm) (mm) (kN) ratio 2.2. Experiment procedure
A 0 1000 _ _ Premature failure _
due to stress The experiment instruments are shown in Fig. 5, among which, Fig. 5
concentration (a), (b) displays an electro-hydraulic servo 10MN long column
B 4 1000 0 0 2600 1.00
compressive testing machine and the DH3810 static resistance strain
C-0.3 4 1000 0.3 120 2510 0.97
C-0.6 4 1000 0.6 239 2460 0.95
system, respectively. As shown in Fig. 6 (a), pairs of longitudinal and
C-0.9 4 1000 0.9 359 2250 0.87 transverse strain gauges whose mode was BF120-5AA (resistance value:
120 Ω; sensitivity factor: 2.08 ± 1%) were attached to the middle of the
Note: t is the steel tube thickness; l is the length of the short RC columns; n is the
Ppre
column at quarter positions around the outer circular cross-section of
preload level that isn = , where Ppre is the preload; fc1 and An is the axial the steel tube to monitor the strain development records.
fc1 An
compressive ultimate strength and the net cross-sectional area of the original RC Two linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were set
column, respectively, and Pu is the experimental maximum capacity. around the specimen to record the longitudinal deformation (Fig. 6(b)).
The longitudinal deformation value was measured by the two LVDTs,
subjected to the serviced load after retrofitting, the bonding effect be­ and the average strain ε was obtained by dividing the longitudinal
tween the pre-stressed rebar and the concrete works well and then the deformation with the original full length of the specimen.
stress can also be transferred efficiently due to the compression, the The load was applied uniformly on the top cross-section of the
stress value in the middle of the concrete is close to the expected pre- specimen. However, before loading, lubricating oil was applied to both
stress value. Considering the existing test conditions, it is feasible to ends of the specimen to avoid the hoop stress generated by the friction
force between the steel plate and the cross-section of the end; the

2502
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Table 2
Material properties of components.
Specimen Concrete Steel tube Steel rebar

fcu1 (MPa) f cu2 (MPa) Yield strength (MPa) Ultimate strength (MPa) Diameter (mm) Yield strength (MPa) Ultimate strength (MPa)

A 32 _ _ _ 6 308 441
B 32 58 339 476 12 290 412
C-0.3
C-0.6
C-0.9

Note: fcu1 and fcu2 are the compressive cubic strengths of the original RC column and the grout, respectively.

Fig. 3. Manufacturing specimen with preload (Unit: mm): (a) Cross-section of reserved hole; (b)Elevation of reserved hole;(c)Post-tensioned pre-stressing original
column;(d) Post-tensioned pre-stressing original column retrofitted with steel tube and grout.

restraint condition of the specimen was pin-pined; as the specimen is
approximately a short column, the restraint condition (length factorμ)
has little effect on its bearing capacity. At the beginning of the test,
force-controlled loading was conducted, and the loading rate was 4kN/s;
when the steel strain was monitored to reach the yield strain, the loading
system was converted to displacement-controlled loading, and the
loading rate was 0.01 mm/s. When the bearing capacity of the specimen
dropped to 85% of the peak bearing capacity or excessive deformation of
the specimen, the test was terminated. The load and strain values were
recorded by a data logger at an interval of 1 s during the testing.
Additionally, when the retrofitted specimen was under the axial
compression, the pre-stressed rebar inside the specimen would change
from tension to compression, so that the pressure measured by the
compressive test machine was greater than the actual load value of the
retrofitted specimen. Therefore, when the strain gauges attached to the
rebar detected that the strain changed from tension to compression, the
actual pressure should be the data measured by the machine minus the
pressure corresponding to the strain of the pre-stressed rebar at this
time.
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Failure modes
For the unreinforced specimen A, as the reason for stress concen­
tration at the foot of the column, the damage of the column occurred

2503
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

is not necessary for the compression test of ordinary RC column to

supplement.
The Fig. 8 (a)-(e) shows that failure modes of the retrofitted columns
with no preload and preload are similar. At the beginning of loading, the
deformation of the specimen is small, but as the load increase, shear slip
lines appear on the surface of the steel tube (Fig. 8(a)) with a subtle
sound; At this instance, the load is close to 60% of the ultimate load,
which indicates steel tube yields; When approaching the peak load,
there are local wrinkles and dilation in the middle of the specimen
(Fig. 8(b), (c). During the loading process, shear deformation and local

Fig. 4. Post-tensioned pre-stressing construction technique at machin­

ery factory.

prematurely, and the peak load value could not be obtained. Horizontal
cracks appeared on the top of the column and extended rapidly along the
column at near 50% of the estimated peak load. Following spalling of the
protective layer of concrete with crackling noise, the foot of the column
ultimately crushed. At this instant, the load capacity decreased steeply.
The failure mode of specimen A is shown in Fig. 7. Noticeably many
documents (in section 1) have proved that the performance of the steel
tube-retrofitted RC columns is much better than that of ordinary RC
columns, moreover this study mainly focus on the comparison of rein­
forced preloaded columns and reinforced non-preloaded columns, so it Fig. 7. Failure mode of specimen A.

Fig. 5. Experiment instruments: (a) Compressive testing machine (10MN); (b) DH3810 static resistance strain system.

Fig. 6. Layout of the strain gauge and LVDT: (a) Section 1-1; (b) The LVDT.

2504
X. Hu et al.
Fig. 8. Failure modes of retrofitted columns: (a) Shear slip lines; (b) Specimen B; (c) Specimen C-0.3;(d) Specimen C-0.6; (e) Specimen C-0.9.
buckling play a critical role (Fig. 8 (d) and Fig. 8 (e)). After the test, the
steel tube of the reinforced column specimen is cut open, it is observed
that the interfaces between the original concrete ,the grout and the steel
tube are well bonded, indicating that the old concrete and new rein­
forcement layer can work together under compression.
2505
Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519
3.2. Peak loads and load-deformation curves
Table 1 lists the maximum experimental loads Pu and the strength
ratios of retrofitted columns (specimen B with no preload is considered
as a standard column). For the retrofitted columns, the preload levels of
0, 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 correspond to strength ratios of 1.00, 0.97, 0.95, and
0.87, respectively. Therefore, the strength ratios of the columns with low
X. Hu et al.
preload levels, such as 0.3 and 0.6, is slightly lower than that with no
preload condition, which is retrofitted column B, and under a low pre-
stress the peak load values of the preloaded and non-preloaded speci­
mens are very close. However, the peak load under a high preload level
of 0.9 decreases dramatically, which is approximately 13% lower than
that without any preload.
Fig. 9 presents applied load (P) versus the longitudinal strain (ε) for
specimens C-0.3 and C-0.9 (as the LVDT suffered damage during testing,
longitudinal deformation values of specimens A, B, and C-0.6 could not
obtain, but the deformation values of C-0.3 and C-0.9 which were
collected by new LVDTs were available). The elastic behavior of the
columns at early stages of loading could be observed in Fig. 9. Moreover,
the deformations increase linearly with increase in load. In addition, the
curves indicate elastoplastic behavior in the columns as the load ap­
proximates 60% of the peak load, which is consistent with the experi­
mental observations that causes shear slip lines. Fig. 9 also presents the
influence of the preload level. The initial stiffness of the two different
preload level specimens C-0.3 and C-0.9 are almost identical because the
two curves coincide at this elastic stage. Although the curve values of the
post-peak were not recorded, the peak load values of the high preload
level specimen C-0.9 are different from the C-0.3 at the elastoplastic
stage. Thus, it is clear that the influence of preload on the retrofitted
column should be considered for high preload levels, whereas it can be
neglected for low preload levels.
3.3. Effect of axial preloading
Fig. 10 presents the comparison of specimens with various preload
levels between the experimental strength capacity Pu and nominal
strength capacity Pn, which is the sum of strength capacities of all
components and the ratios (Pu / Pn). The experimental values are
distinguished to be remarkably higher than those of the nominal one,
except for the preloaded specimen C-0.9. As the preload level increases
from 0 to 0.6, the ratios of the experimental value Pu to the nominal
value Pn remains between 1.15 and 1.09 indicating that the hoop re­
straint of steel tube is in effect, as shown in Fig. 10. However, the ulti­
mate strength capacity for the preload level of 0.9 is only 2250 kN,
which is even lower than the nominal value of 2267 kN. A ratio of 0.99
(lesser than 1.00) shows that the hoop restraint of the steel tube seems to
fail. Therefore, we can conclude that the effect of the low preload level
on the strength capacity of retrofitted columns was not evident, and the
influence of a high preload level should be evaluated.
3.4. Load-strain relationship
Fig. 11 shows the load (P) versus strain (ε) of the steel tube in which l
and h represent experimentally measured longitudinal and hoop strain
of the steel tube, respectively. Fig. 11(a)–(d) exhibits common
Fig. 9. Load (P) versus longitudinal strain (ε) curves.
2506
Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519
characteristics with almost linear curves of the steel tube.
In the elastic stage, the longitudinal strain is significantly higher than
the hoop stress, which indicates that the hoop restrain of the steel tube
does not work. Furthermore, the curve enters the inelastic range when
the applied load was close to 75% of the peak load. At this stage, the
dramatic increase in hoop strain of the steel tube demonstrates that the
confinement effect is effective. Consequently, all the strains yield when
the curve stays at the peak load.
All the hoop strains (h) and longitudinal strains (l) of the steel tubes
are shown in Fig. 11 (e). When the loads are close to the peak load, all
the strain of the steel tube have yielded, indicating that the constraint
effect of the steel tube on the concrete core have been exerted. As shown
in Fig. 11 (e), there are no noticeable differences in the stress–strain
curves of the steel tubes of retrofitted specimens under different
preloads.
4. Finite element modeling
Due to the limited test funds, test conditions, and number of speci­
mens, it is necessary to carry out finite element numerical simulation
calculations for comprehensive research on the mechanical mechanism
of steel tube-retrofitted circular RC column. The numerical model of the
retrofitted RC column implemented in the finite element program
ABAQUS 6.14–1[28] is shown in Fig. 12 that also demonstrates the
element properties of the components which are original concrete, the
grout, steel plates, steel tube, and reinforced cage, respectively.
4.1. Finite element
Original concrete, the grout and the end steel plates are discretized
with 8-node 24-DOFs solid hexahedral elements C3D8R (Continuum,
3D, 8-node, Reduced integration) [28]; reduced integration refers to
consider a single integration point in the center of the element. This
element is chosen because its accuracy, and as the shear self-locking
under bending load is not easy to occur. For the steel tube, as its one-
dimensional size (wall thickness) is much smaller than the other di­
mensions, it adopts element S4R (Shell, 4-node, Reduced integration)
[28]; When the hour-glassing data problem (caused by thin membrane
mode or bending mode) is considered, or there is in-plane bending in the
model, this element will achieve higher accuracy. Moreover, the rebar
embedded in the original concrete is discretized with elements T3D2
(Truss, 3D, 2-node) [28] which can only calculate the stress in the axial
direction but not the bending moment. In civil engineering, element
T3D2 is usually used to simulate reinforcement.
4.2. Concrete uniaxial constitutive law
The mechanic of reinforced column by steel tube is completely
different from original RC members, mainly due to the confinement
provided by the steel tube; the maximum confinement effect has been
found in circular columns. For this reason, the constitutive uniaxial
constitutive law in choosing concrete core included the original concrete
and grout by Han et al [29].is adopted.
The compressive stress–strain curve consists of two segments
(branches): the initial growth curve and following that, the descending
one (Fig. 13 (a)). These segments are described by Equations (1) and (2),
respectively:
[ ( )2 ]
Forεc ≤ ε0, εc εc (1)
σ c = σ0 A − B
ε0 ε0
( )0.1θ
andfor εc > ε0 εc (2)
θ ≥ 0.92, σc = σ0 (1 − q) + σ0 q ,
ε0
( )
εc 1
θ < 0.92, σc = σ0 ( )2 .
ε0 εc εc
β − 1 +
ε0 ε0
In Equations from (1) and (2), σ c and εc are the compressive stress and
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Fig. 10. Comparison of strength capacities between the experimental value and the nominal value with different axial compressive ratios.

strain in concrete, respectively. In the first (growing) segment (εc ≤ ε0), In Equation (4), the boundary strains are defined as εe = 0.8 fy/Es (80%
σ 0 is the peak stress and ε0 is the corresponding strain. A and B are of the corner yield strain), εe1 = 1.5 εe, εe2 = 10 εe1, and εe3 = 100 εe1. In
dimensionless coefficients, given by A = 2 − K and B = 1 − K, where K = the second (parabolic) segment, A, B, and C are coefficients given by A
0.1 θ0.745, θ is the ratio between the steel and concrete capacities, which = 0.2 fy/(εe1 − εe)2, B = 2 A εe1, C = 0.8 fy + A (εe)2 – B εe.
is expressed as θ = Acsf cky , where As and Ac are the areas of a steel tube and
Af From these parameters, Fig. 13 (b) displays the 5-segment curve
a concrete core, respectively. described by Equation (4) and the material properties of the steel tube
In Equation (1), the peak stress is given by, σ 0 = are listed in Table 3.
[ ( )0.45 ]
13
( 2
)
fck 1.194 + fck − 0.07485θ + 0.5789θ The peak strain is ε0 = 4.4. Finite elements meshing and boundary condition
[ ( )]
εc0 + 1400 +800 fck20
− 20
θ0.2 (in MPa and με), where εc0 is the peak The specific meshing components are displayed in Fig. 12. Fig. 12 (a)
display the general view of reinforced column, Fig. 12 (b), (c), (d), (e)
strain of plain concrete; it is given by εc0 = 1300 + 14.93 fck. and (f) present views of original concrete, grout, steel plates, steel tube
Equation (2) corresponds to the second descending segment (εc > ε0). and reinforced cage respectively. The mesh sizes are determined
In the top equation (θ ≥ 0.92, rather high confinement), q is an inter­ through convergence studies to achieve accurate simulations with a
polation coefficient given by q = 0.2+0.1θ
K
. Then, in the bottom equation minimum increase in the computational cost; the basic element size
(θ < 0.92, rather moderate confinement), selected is 15 mm.
(
β = 2.36 × 10− 5
)0.25+(θ− 0.5)7 ( )2 − 4
5 fck 10 . Besides column itself, the finite element model also includes two rigid
The elastic modulus of the original concrete and grout are defined as steel plates (350 mm × 350 mm × 20 mm), such plates are fixed to both
√̅̅̅̅ column segment ends in order to reproduce the adequate boundary
Ec = 4730 f ’c [30], where fc’ represents the compressive strength of the conditions. That is, for the bottom of the steel plate, all the degrees of
concrete cylinder, and the relevant material elastic properties are listed freedom are restricted except rotation and the top of the steel plate re­
in Table 3. leases degrees of freedom of rotation and vertical direction (in Fig. 12(a)).
The fracture energy-based approach developed by Hillerborg et al.
[31] is adopted for the numerical element model under tension, and the 4.5. Concrete-steel contact
expression is shown as:
The concrete-steel interaction in the interface between the grout and
GF = 73(fcm )0.18 (3)
the steel tube and the concrete-grout interaction in the interface be­
where,fcm is the mean concrete compressive strength in MPa. tween the grout and the old concrete are described by the Abaqus
Regarding the basic parameters for the concrete damage plasticity surface-to-surface contact model; this approach considers compression
model (CDPM), the yield surface is described by parameters K c and σb0 / only (thus, bonding is neglected) and penetration is prevented. The
σ 0. Kc is a ratio between the biaxial and tri-axial isobaric compressive sliding between both materials is simulated with the Mohr-Coulomb
strength, K c = 2/3 is taken [32]; σ b0/σ 0 is a ratio between the equi- formulation using a penalty function; the friction coefficient is con­
biaxial to the uniaxial compressive maximum stress, σ b0/σ0 = 1.16 stant, being equal to 0.5 and 0.8, respectively [34,35]. Additionally, the
[33]. After yielding, the flow rule is characterized by the dilation angle tie contact model is applied between the retrofitted column and the steel
and the eccentricity; the dilation angle is 30◦ [33] and the eccentricity is plate to bind their common nodes.
established as 0.1[33]. Finally, the viscosity coefficient is used to adjust
the constitutive law to improve the convergence efficiency in the soft­ 4.6. Nonlinear calculation
ening stage; the assumed value is close to 0 [33].
Regarding the mechanical nonlinearity, it corresponds to the
constitutive laws and other issues described in subsections 4.2 and 4.3.
4.3. Steel uniaxial constitutive law
Then, the ensuing nonlinear calculations are performed incrementally
(Newton-Raphson method) by using virtual time. In calculation, the
The steel tensile and compressive uniaxial plastic behavior is
displacement is imposed to the top of the specimen for good conver­
described with a 5-segment stress–strain law [29]:
gence. The initial time increment is 0.01 s, and the maximum number of
σs = σs = − Aε2s + σs = fy σs = σs = (4)
E s εs
[ ]
1.6fy
iterations per step is 10000. If there is no convergence, the time step is
Bεs + C εs − εe2
fy 1 +0.6 automatically reduced until reaching its minimum value (0.00001 s).
εe3 − εe2
εs ≤ εe εe < εs ≤ εe1 εe1 < εs εe2 < εs ≤ εe3 εs > εe3 The convergence criterion is based on both force and displacement; the
≤ εe2 corresponding bound ratios are 0.005 and 0.01, respectively; the
convergence error is 0.005.

2507
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Fig. 11. Load (P) versus strain (ε) curves for steel tube of retrofitted specimens: (a) Specimen B; (b) Specimen C-0.3 ;(c) Specimen C-0.6; (d) Specimen C-0.9;(e)
Comparing with the horizontal and hoop strains.

2508
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Fig. 12. Component elements of the retrofitted specimen: (a) The model of retrofitted column ;(b) Original concrete ;(c) Grout; (d) End plate; (e) Steel tube; (f)
Reinforced cage.

4.7. Verification of finite element model
The finite element models of the steel tube-retrofitted RC columns
are verified by comparing the load–longitudinal deformation responses
calculated by the numerical simulation with the experiments of other
literature [13,36] in Fig. 14.Among above literature, [13] is about the
axial compression tests of circular RC columns reinforced by circular
steel tubes. The variable parameters are the thickness of the steel tube (t)
and the strength of the filled concrete (fcu2), while [36] is the reinforced
axial compression tests that the author has done before, and the

2509
X. Hu et al.
Fig. 13. constitutive stress–strain law:(a) concrete; (b) steel.
Table 3
Material properties of specimen.
Material Density (kN.m− 3) Elastic Modulus (MPa) Elastic Poisson’s Ratio
Concrete 23.5 2.36 × 104
0.20
Grout 24.4 3.18 × 104 0.20
Steel tube 78.5 2.06 × 105 0.26
parameters are the preload level (n) and the thickness of steel tubes (t).
The detailed dimensions, parameters, test results, and FEM results of the
specimens are displayed in Table 4.
As shown in Fig. 14 (a)–(l), both curves are in good agreement with
the initial stiffness, peak loads and ductility behavior. Meanwhile the
axial compressive ultimate loads of retrofitted specimens determined
from the numerical calculation (PFEM) and those measured from the
experiments (PEXP) are also presented in Table 4. A mean value (PFEM/
PEXP) of 0.996 and coefficient of variation (CoV) of 0.072 are obtained,
and the above comparisons indicate that the finite element numerical
model is capable of simulating the steel tube-retrofitted circular RC short
columns accurately. The calculation results are reliable and effective.
5. Analysis and discussion
In order to further investigate on the axial compressive properties of
the reinforced columns under preload, the C-0.3 specimen is used as the
research object, and the mechanical performance of columns is dis­
cussed using the finite element model in detail in the following section.
5.1. Load deformation history
The curves representing the relationship between the load (P) and
longitudinal strain (ε) for specimen C-0.3 are shown in Fig. 15, where
the responses of the original concrete, grout, steel tube, and steel rebar
are also included. The longitudinal stress and confining stress distribu­
tion of the concrete core, including the original concrete and the grout at
four characteristic points (A, B, C, D), are displayed in Fig. 16 and
Fig. 17, respectively. The contact stresses between the new (grout) and
the old (original concrete) in the cross-section at four characteristic
points are shown in Fig. 18. In Fig. 15, the four characteristic points A, B,
C, D on the curve can divide the curve into four stages based on stiffness:
O-A, A-B, B-C and C-D, which are elastic stage, elastoplastic stage, plastic
stage and hardening stage respectively. Noticeably, point A is the pro­
portion limit where beyond this limit, the relationship between the
stresses and strains are not proportional. Point B indicates the peak load
point where the value is maximal. Point C represents the initiation point
of hardening where the value begins to remain constant. Point D shows
the end point of the curve where the calculation terminates.
2510
Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519
5.1.1. Points O–A: elastic stage
As shown in Fig. 15, the column remains elastic in this stage. The
distribution of the core concrete longitudinal stress including original
concrete and grout is uniform, and the confining stress value is very low,
which signifies that there is no evident interaction between the steel
tube and concrete core (Fig. 17(a)) and between the original concrete
and grout (Fig. 18). Thus, the original concrete and the grout mainly
sustain the axial load (Fig. 16(a)). Because the Yong’s Modulus of the
original concrete and the grout are different, the longitudinal stress on
both of them were evenly distributed over the cross-section in propor­
tion of their Young’s modulus, as shown in Fig. 16(a).
5.1.2. Points A–B: elastic–plastic stage
As the specimen is in an elastic–plastic state, there appears the sig­
nificant transverse deformation of the concrete core. The confining
stress of the original concrete and the grout and the contact stress be­
tween the original concrete and the grout increase sharply, especially
the center of the concrete core (Fig. 17(b), Fig. 18). At the point B, the
distribution and the longitudinal stress value of the original concrete are
almost similar to the grout (Fig. 16(b)), which proves the confinement
effect has taken effect. As shown in Fig. 15, the load of the steel tube
starts to decrease slowly owing to outward buckling after the steel tube
reaches its peak load and the rebar has entered the strain-hardening
plateau post-yielding. Although the specimen has reached its axial
compressive ultimate load at point B, the corresponding strengths of the
original concrete and grout are both very close to the ultimate load of
specimen.
5.1.3. Points B–C: plastic stage
The load on the steel tube exceeds its corresponding yield limit and it
enters the strain-hardening plateau in this stage. Meanwhile the strength
of the original concrete increases continuously and subsequently reaches
its ultimate strength owing to the significant confinement provided by
the steel tube, as shown in Fig. 15. It also can be found from the Fig. 18
that the contact stress reaches the maximum at this stage. Fig. 17(c)
depicts that not only does the value of confining stress continue to in­
crease but also the area of high confining stress continues to spread in
the concrete core at Point C.
5.1.4. Points C–D: Hardening stage
As shown in Fig. 15, the curves of all the components generally start
to stabilize as ε dramatically increases because of the significant
confinement effect. Both Fig. 16(d) and Fig. 17(d) indicate that the stress
value including longitudinal and the confining stress of the original
concrete is higher than those of the grout. But the contact stress between
original concrete and the grout decreases slightly in Fig. 18.
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Fig. 14. Comparisons between experimental and FEA responses of load (P) versus average longitudinal deformation:(a) Specimen C-0.3; (b) Specimen C-0.9; (c)
Specimen TZ3-C50-A-P2; (d) SpecimenTZ2-C50-A-P2;(e) SpecimenTZ3-C40-A-P2;(f) SpecimenTZ3-C60-A-P2;(g) SpecimenTZ4-C50-A-P2; (h) Specimen TZ3-C50-A-
P1;(i) Specimen Z2; (j) Specimen Z3; (k) Specimen Z4; (l) Specimen X4.

2511
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Fig. 14. (continued).

Table 4
Verification of the finite element model.
Model Specimens label D/t/l (mm) n fcu1 (MPa) fcu2 (MPa) fy (MPa) PEXP (kN) PFEM (kN) PFEM/PEXP

Lu YY [13] TZ3-C50-A-P2 219/3.25/657 0 32.83 52.58 352 3029 2777 0.917

TZ2-C50-A-P2 219/1.8/657 0 32.83 52.58 390 2265 2072 0.915
TZ4-C50-A-P2 219/3.90/657 0 32.83 52.58 342 3274 3118 0.952
TZ3-C40-A-P2 219/3.25/657 0 32.83 43.01 352 2768 2662 0.962
TZ3-C60-A-P2 219/3.25/657 0 32.83 61.26 352 2914 2885 0.990
TZ3-C50-A-P1 219/3.25/657 0 32.83 52.58 352 2908 2772 0.953
Hu X [36] Z-2 300/2/1000 0 36.3 38 260 3493 3433 0.983
Z-3 300/3/1000 0 36.3 38 260 3987 3901 0.978
Z-4 300/4/1000 0 36.3 38 260 4401 4396 0.999
X-4 300/4/1000 0.11 36.3 38 260 4376 3935 0.899
This paper B 219/4/1000 0 32 58 339 2600 2821 1.085
C-0.3 219/4/1000 0.3 32 58 339 2510 2742 1.082
C-0.6 219/4/1000 0.6 32 58 339 2460 2660 1.081
C-0.9 210/4/1000 0.9 32 58 339 2250 2568 1.141
Mean value 0.996
CoV 0.072

2512
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Fig. 15. Axial load (P) versus axial strain (ε) response of specimen C-0.3.

Fig. 16. Longitudinal stress on the original concrete and grout: (a) Point A; (b) Point B; (c) Point C; (d) Point D.

Fig. 17. Confining stress on the original concrete and grout: (a) Point A; (b) Point B; (c) Point C; (d) Point D.

5.2. Effects of preload
This section discusses the effects of preload on the components
(including the whole section, original concrete, grout and bars). This
paper divides the preload levels into two groups. The first group does not
exceed 0.5 in terms of the preload level mentioned in the first section, and
the second group has preload levels greater than 0.5. So the responses of
load (P) versus longitudinal strain (ε) of the retrofitted RC columns
including the components influenced by various preloads are shown in
Fig. 19 and Fig. 20 respectively, where the symbol “●” represents the
peak load on the whole section. Note that in above two groups, the
specimen with none preloading is as the reference specimen for com­
parison. Fig. 21 presents the comparison of peak load of specimens with
various preload levels and the strength ratios of the peak loads of the
preloaded specimens to the peak loads of none preloaded specimen.
The responses under the various preload levels that are 0.3 and 0.5
respectively are shown in Fig. 19. The curves of the whole section,
concrete core, and rebar almost overlap, and the curves of the steel tube
and grout completely coincided. All specimens reach peak strains almost
simultaneously. It also indicates that the peak loads of the whole section,
original concrete and rebar with no preload are slightly higher than
those with preload. Consequently, the peak loads of the preloaded col­
umns decrease slightly as the preload levels increase, and the maximum
strength ratio was 0.95 (the strength ratio of the preloaded specimen to
the non-preloaded specimen), as shown in Fig. 21. Although the peak
loads of preloaded retrofit columns vary under the low preload levels,
the effect of low preload levels on the axial compressive peak load and
peak strain of the retrofitted column can be negligible.
The responses under the preload levels that are 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 and
0.95 respectively are indicated in Fig. 20. The result reveals a large gap

2513
X. Hu et al.
Fig. 18. Contact stress between the original concrete and grout (Unit: MPa).
between in the peak load between the preloaded retrofitted columns and
the retrofitted column with no preload. Except for the peak strain lags
when the preload level is 0.95, the other peak strains all appear in
advance and almost coincide. Maximum strength ratio, as shown in
Fig. 21, is 0.9. It can be seen that the peak loads of the entire section,
original concrete and rebar are more sensible to the initial stress existing
in the original concrete owing to the high preload level. Thus, the effect
of high preload level on the retrofitted columns should be further
evaluated.
Fig. 19. Curves of axial load (P) - longitudinal strain (ε) under low preload levels: (a) Original concrete and infill grout; (b) Steel tube and bars.
Fig. 20. Curves of axial load (P) - longitudinal strain (ε) under high preload levels: (a) Original concrete and infill grout; (b) Steel tube and bars.
2514
Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519
5.3. Effect of preload and other parameters
In addition to studying the effect of preload on the mechanical
properties of the reinforced specimens, this paper also continues to study
the effects of other parameters on the peak load of the reinforced column
and the mechanical properties of the members under the action of pre­
load. The axial load (P) versus longitudinal strain (ε) curves of the ret­
rofitted column C-0.9 could be influenced by the thickness and yield
strength of the steel tube and the strength of the grout, as exhibited in
Figs. 22–24. The strength ratio of the preloaded specimen to the non-
preloaded specimen and the peak load of the retrofitted spec­
imens—including preloaded and non-preloaded specimens with three
parameters—are shown in Fig. 25.
As shown in Fig. 22 the peak loads of the components, including the
whole section, original concrete, grout, and steel tube and excluding the
rebars, increase steeply with the steel tube thickness. This is because the
increase in the thickness of the steel tube can not only enhance the
vertical capacity of the steel tube but also can provide enough
confinement to concrete core, resulting in a great improvement in the
compressive capacity and behavior of the retrofitted RC column.
Although the original concrete subjected to an adverse preload level, the
thickness of the steel tube is a critical factor in improving the perfor­
mance of the steel tube-retrofitted preloaded RC column. It can be
inferred that the thickness of the steel tube has a little effect on the
preload, as the strength ratio increase slightly with an increase in the
steel tube thickness (Fig. 25 (a)).
Fig. 23 shows that as the yield strength of the steel tube increases, the
strength and ductility of the components, including the whole section,
original concrete, grout, and steel tube, improve under adverse preload
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Fig. 21. Comparison of strength reduction ratios of retrofitted RC specimens under various preloads.

Fig. 22. Curves of axial load (P) - strain (ε) with various steel tube thicknesses: (a) Original concrete and grout; (b) Steel tube and bars.

Fig. 23. Curves of axial load (P) - strain (ε) with various steel yield strengths: (a) Original concrete and grout; (b) Steel tube and bars.

condition; furthermore, the initial stiffness of each component remains
constant. Moreover, Fig. 25(b) indicates that the increasing yield
strength of the steel tube reduces the adverse effects of the preloads
slightly.
The specimens with various ultimate strengths for the grout—C30,
C45, and C60—are analyzed. As shown in Fig. 24, the results indicate a
slight improvement in the ultimate strength capacity of retrofitted col­
umns for an increase in the strength of the grout. This could be attrib­
uted to the high strength of the grout as compared with the original
concrete. With the increase of the strength of the grout, the ultimate
bearing capacity of steel tube and original concrete and rebar do not
have significant change. However, the effect of preload appears more
evident with an increase in the grout strength (Fig. 25(c)). Thus, it can
be concluded that the strength of the grout has a limited effect on the
preloaded retrofitted column.
6. Proposed practical design method
From the above experimental research and numerical analysis, a
proposed practical design method can be obtained, and the following
hypotheses are proposed before the derivation.
(1) No consideration of the tensile strength of the original concrete
and grout;

2515
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Fig. 24. Curves of axial load (P) - strain (ε) with various grades of grout: (a) Original concrete and grout; (b) Steel tube and bars.

(2) The grout undergoes both shear and axial deformation; concrete constitutive relationship Hognestad, we obtain:
(3) There is no slip between the rebar and original concrete and √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
σ
between the grout and steel tube; ε1 = (1− 1 − c1 )ε’cu (8)
fc
(4) The cross-section of the retrofitted columns remains plane under
deformation.
where fc is the ultimate axial compressive strength;ε’cu means the ulti­
mate compressive strain of the concrete that equals to 0.002;β = σfc1c and
βε = εε’1 are pre-stress and pre-strain level indices with the correlation
6.1. Determination of axial compressive strength capacity cu

expressed as:
When the strain of the retrofitted short column reaches the ultimate √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
βε = 1 − 1− β (9)
compressive strain εcu under axial compressive load, the concrete core is √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ’
destroyed. Thereafter, the retrofitted steel tube takes over the work, but And, ε1 = βε ε’cu = (1 − 1 − β)εcu (10)
it also fails ultimately, and simultaneously, the entire retrofitted column The corresponding stress on the rebar is represented as:
reaches its strength capacity. At this instant, the concrete core stress ( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ) ’ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(approximately including that of the grout) reaches f cc; the stress of the σ 1 = Es1 ε1 = Es1 1 − 1 − β εcu = fy (1 − 1 − β) (11)
rebar reaches fy1, and the stress of the steel tube reaches σ s2. The rein­
forcement layer cannot reach its own strength capacity owing to stress 6.3. Stress and strain of the retrofitted column
lagging, and the stress of the reinforcement layer depends on the dif­
ference between the ultimate concrete core strain εcu of the retrofitted The ultimate strength capacities of the concrete core and rebar is
column and the original pre-strain ε1 of the original concrete column, reached when the retrofitted column attains the ultimate compressive
which is expressed asΔε = εcu − ε1 . Thus, the stress on the steel tube σ s2 load capacity. Here, the ultimate compressive stress of the concrete core
increases withΔε. The calculation of ultimate bearing capacity of a ret­ and rebar is f cc and f y, respectively; εcu is the ultimate compressive stress
rofitted column adopts the superposition method. of the retrofitted concrete, and thus the increment of the concrete strain
can be described as follows:
Nu = fcc AC + fy1 As1 + σ s2 As2 , (5)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ’
Δε = εcu − ε1 = εcu − (1 − 1 − β)εcu (12)
where, fcc and Ac are the confined concrete compressive strength ca­
pacity and cross-sectional area of the concrete core (including original Furthermore, εcu adopts the Youguang Pan model [37]:
√̅̅̅
concrete and grout), respectively; f y1 and As1 are the yield strength and εcu = ε’cu + 3600 α, with α = As /Ac . (13)
total cross-sectional area of the rebar, respectively;σs2 and As2 are the Therefore, the stress on the steel tube is
longitudinal stress and the cross-sectional area of the steel tube, [ ( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ) ’ ]
respectively. σ s2 = ΔεEs2 = εcu − 1 − 1 − β εcu Es2

[ ( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ) ]
6.2. Stress and strain of the original RC column = εcu − 0.002 1 − 1 − β Es2 = αs fy2 (14)

The preload of the original concrete column is calculated as follows: where, αs = fy2 ,
σs2
and it represents the strength utilization factor of the
Es1 steel tube.
N1 = σc1 Ac1 + σ s1 As1 = Ec ε1 Ac + Es1 ε1 As1 = σc1 (Ac + As1 ) (6) In addition, according to Equation (14), we obtain
Ec
( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
In addition, the pre-stress of the original concrete column is σ [εcu − 0.002 1 − 1 − β ]Es2
αs = s2 = (15)
N1 fy2 fy2
σ c1 = (7)
Ac + As1 EEs1c
where fy2 is the yield strength of the steel tube and Es2 is Young’s
modulus of the steel tube.
where, N1 is the preload of the original concrete column,Ec andEs1 are
the Young’s moduli of the original concrete and the steel tube,
respectively.
Then considering the concrete compressive pre-stress into the classic

2516
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Fig. 25. Strength ratios and ultimate strengths of retrofitted specimens: (a) Thickness of steel tube; (b) Yield strength of steel tube; (c) Grout strength.

( )
6.4. Bearing compressive capacity calculation for retrofitted column √̅̅̅
fr 2tf
formula [38]: fcc = fc 1 +1.5 fc +2 ffcr ,wherefr = D− y22t (17)
The bearing compressive capacity of the retrofitted column can be
In the above formula, fr is the hoop confined stress. The strength
described as:
utilization factor of the steel tube is given by Equation (18).
Nu = fcc AC + fy1 As1 + αs fy2 As2 (16) The peak loads Pm predicted by the proposed practical design
method are compared with the results PEXP of this experiment and other
where Nu denotes the bearing compressive capacity, and fcc adopts Cai’s literature, and are listed in Table 5. Furthermore, the results PCECS, PANSI,
PEC4 and PAIJ calculated by the existing design codes CECS 28–2012,

2517
X. Hu et al. Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519

Table 5
Comparison of the results predicted by existing design codes and proposed practical design method with that obtained from experiment.
Model Specimens PEXP (kN) CECS/28–2012 ANSI/AISC EC4 AIJ-CFT Proposed method

PCECS (kN) PCECS/PEXP PANSI (kN) PANSI/PEXP PEC4 (kN) PANSI/PEXP PAIJ(kN) PAIJ/PEXP Pm (kN) Pm/PEXP

Lu YY [13] TZ3-C50-A-P2 3029 2212 0.73 2419 0.80 2149 0.71 2124 0.70 2559 0.917
TZ2-C50-A-P2 2265 1733 0.77 2142 0.95 1687 0.74 1917 0.85 2370 0.915
TZ4-C50-A-P2 3274 2369 0.72 2537 0.77 2352 0.72 2428 0.74 2634 0.952
TZ3-C40-A-P2 2768 2112 0.76 2292 0.83 2081 0.75 2009 0.73 2386 0.962
TZ3-C60-A-P2 2914 2230 0.8 2579 0.89 2224 0.76 2268 0.78 2714 0.990
TZ3-C50-A-P1 2908 2212 0.76 2419 0.83 2149 0.74 2124 0.73 2559 0.953
Hu X [36] Z-2 3493 2141 0.61 2840 0.81 2160 0.62 2549 0.73 3188 0.983
Z-3 3987 2561 0.64 3055 0.77 2525 0.63 2831 0.71 3369 0.978
Z-4 4401 2978 0.68 3268 0.74 2882 0.65 3112 0.71 3540 1.0
X-4 4376 2978 0.68 3268 0.75 2169 0.66 3112 0.71 3289 0.899
This paper B 2600 2343 0.9 2478 0.95 2169 0.83 2257 0.87 2608 1.085
C-0.3 2510 2343 0.93 2478 0.99 2169 0.86 2257 0.90 2517 1.082
C-0.6 2460 2343 0.95 2478 1.01 2169 0.88 2257 0.92 2192 1.081
C-0.9 2250 2343 1.04 2478 1.10 2169 0.96 2257 1.0 1940 1.141
Mean value 0.784 0.870 0.753 0.791 0.890
Cov 0.123 0.107 0.098 0.094 0.081

ANSI/AISC, EC4, and AIJ-CFT are also compared with the experimental
results. From above calculation results and experimental results listed in
Table 5, it can be seen that the results predicted by the proposed prac­
tical design method are more accurate, and the mean value of Pm/PEXP is
0.890 with a CoV of 0.081. As far as four existing design codes are
concerned, the results PAIJ estimated by AIJ-CFT are more consistent
with the experimental results. The mean value and CoV of PAIJ/PEXP are
0.791 and 0.094, respectively. Therefore, the proposed practical design
method and AIJ-CFT can provide accurate axial compressive ultimate
strength of steel tube-retrofitted circular RC columns under preload.
7. Conclusions
A comprehensive experimental and numerical investigation of RC
short circular columns retrofitted with steel tubes under preload con­
ditions was conducted. The main research conclusions are as follows:
Compared with low preload level, the influence of high preload level
on the compressive strength of retrofitted columns should be considered
because compressive ultimate strength of the retrofitted columns with
preload level 0.90 was reduced by up to 13% as compared with retro­
fitted columns under no preload. The behavior of the steel tube retro­
fitted columns was observed to be almost similar to that of the none-
preloaded columns.
An extensive parametric study was thereby undertaken to extend the
available results over a wide range of preload levels. After comparative
analysis, not only can not the influence of the high preload level on the
ultimate strength capacity be neglected, but also the thickness and yield
strength of the steel tube were the dominant factors affecting the per­
formance of preloaded retrofitted columns. Meanwhile it was found that
the preload was more sensitive to the strength of the grout. The higher
the strength of the grout is, the stronger the effect of the preload.
A new practical design method for the preloaded retrofitted column
was proposed, and the calculation results by the proposed design
method are consistent with the test results; compared the results pre­
dicted by existing four design codes such as CECS 28–2012, ANSI/AISC,
EC4, and AIJ-CFT with the test results, the results of AIJ-CFT can better
predict the test results
Based on the above research findings, it is necessary to further
discuss the influence of preloading on performance of the retrofitted
column under cyclic and long-term hypothesis. The influence of preload
on steel tube-retrofitted RC columns under complex forces is worthy of
study in-depth by researchers.
Declaration of Competing Interest
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This research was financially funded by the Chinese Government
Scholarship (No. 201906560013).The project was supported by the
State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment
Protection (No. SKLGP2020K010). We thank our research students for
their valuable work and providing experimental data, and anonymous
reviewers for their critiques and comments.
References
[1] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Xiao Y, Verma R. Steel jacket retrofitting of reinforced
concrete bridge columns for enhanced shear strength-Part1: Theoretical
considerations and test design. ACI Struct J 1994;91(4):394–405.
[2] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Xiao Y, Verma R. Steel jacket retrofitting of reinforced
concrete bridge columns for enhanced shear strength-Part2: Test results and
comparison with theory. ACI Struct J 1994;91(5):537–51.
[3] Chai YH, Priestley MJN, Seible F. Seismic retrofit of circular bridge columns for
enhanced flexural performance. ACI Struct J 1991;88(5):572–84.
[4] CHAI YH. An analysis of the seismic characteristics of steel-jacketed circular bridge
columns. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1996;25(2):149–61.
[5] Ramírez JL, Bárcena JM, Urreta JI, Sanchez JA. Efficiency of short steel jackets for
strengthening square section concrete columns. Constr Build Mater 1997;11(5-6):
345–52.
[6] Xiao Y, Ma R. Seismic retrofit of RC circular columns using prefabricated composite
jacketing. J Struct Eng 1997;123(10):1357–64.
[7] Xiao Y, Wu H. Retrofit of reinforced concrete columns using partially stiffened steel
jackets. J Struct Eng 2003;129(6):725–32.
[8] Saiid Saiidi M, Martinovic F, McElhaney B, Sanders D, Gordaninejad F. Assessment
of steel and fiber reinforced plastic jackets for seismic retrofit of reinforced
concrete columns with structural flares. J Struct Eng 2004;130(4):609–17.
[9] Sezen H, Miller EA. Experimental evaluation of axial behavior of strengthened
circular reinforced-concrete columns. ACI Struct J 2011;107(6):654–62.
[10] Sezen H, Miller EA. Experimental evaluation of axial behavior of strengthened
circular reinforced-concrete columns. J Bridge Eng 2011;16(2):238–47.
[11] Rao Arsalan Khushnood, Sajjad Ahmad, Zulqarnain Ali Sabir. Retrofitting of
existing columns of buildings and bridges using steel jacketing. 8th CCC, Durability
of Concrete Structures(2012).NP Plitvice Lakes, Croatia.
[12] Abedi K, Afshinb H, Noori Shirazic MR. Numerical study on the seismic retrofitting
of reinforced concrete columns using rectified steel jackets. Asian Journal of Civil
Engineering (Building and Housing) 2010;11(2):219–40.
[13] Lu YY, Gong TN, Zhang XP, Xue JF. Experimental research on behavior of circular
RC column strengthened with self-compacting concrete filled circular steel jacket
under axial loading. J Build Struct 2013;34(6):121–8 (in Chinese).
[14] Lu YY, Xiao LW, Li S, Liang HJ. Finite element analysis of the behavior of square
RC columns strengthened with concrete-filled square steel tube under little
eccentric compression. Concrete 2019;5(355):14–9 (in Chinese).
[15] Lu YY, Xue JF, Gong TN, Zhang XP. Eccentric-loaded behavior of circular RC
columns strengthened with self-compacting concrete filled steel tubes. Eng Mech
2015;32(8):164–81 (in Chinese).
[16] Fawad Muhammad, Kalman K, Khushnood RA, Usman Muhammad. Retrofitting of
damaged reinforced concrete bridge structure. Proc Struct Integ 2019;18:189–97.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

2518
X. Hu et al.
[17] Choi E, Chung YS, Park J, Cho BS. Behavior of reinforced concrete columns
confined by new steel-jacketing method. ACI Struct J 2010;107(6):654–62.
[18] Choi E. Method for retrofitting reinforced concrete column using multi-layered
steel plates, and retrofitting structure of reinforced concrete column using the
same. US 8,281545 B2. Oct. 9,2012.
[19] Fabio Di Trapani, Marzia Malavisi, Giuseppe Carlo Marano, Rita Greco, Marco
Filippo Ferrotto. Optimal design algorithm for seismic retrofitting of RC columns
with steel jacketing technique. Proc Manuf 2019;44:639-646.
[20] Jodawat Abhishek, Parekh Arihant, Marathe Bhushan, Pawar Ketan, Patwa Sunny,
Sahu Yash, Jain Indrajeet. Retrofitting of reinforced concrete column by Steel
jacketing. J Eng Res Appl 2016;6(7):01–5.
[21] He A, Cai J, Chen J, Liu X, Xu J. Behavior of steel-jacket retrofitted RC columns
with preload effects. Thin-Walled Struct 2016;109:25–39.
[22] He A, Cai J, Chen Q-J, Liu X, Xue H, Yu C. Axial compressive behavior of steel
jacket retrofitted RC columns with recycled aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater
2017;141:501–16.
[23] Cai J, Jin X. Ultimate strength of reinforced concrete columns strengthened by
circular jacketing. J South China Univ Technol 2007;35(10):78–83 (in Chinese).
[24] CECS28:2012.Technical Specification for Concrete-filled Steel Tubular Structures.
Beijing: China Planning Press; 2012. (in Chinese).
[25] ANSI/AISC360-05.Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Chicago: American
Institute of Steel Construction; 2005.
[26] Eurocode 4 (EC4). Design of Steel and Concrete Structures. Part 1: General Rules
and Rules for Building. Brussels:European Committee for Standardization; 2004.
[27] Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). Recommendations for Design and
Construction of Concrete Filled Steel Tubular Structures.Tokyo: Architectural
Institute of Japan; 1997.
2519
Structures 33 (2021) 2500–2519
[28] Smith M.ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual, Version 6.9. Providence,RI: Dassault
Systèmes Simulia Corporation; 2009.
[29] Han LH. Concrete-filled steel tube structure. Beijing: Science Press; 2004 (in
Chinese).
[30] ACI. 318–05. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.
Detroit: Farmington Hills (MI). Am Concr Inst 2005.
[31] Hillerborg A, Modeer M, Petersson PE. Analysis of crack formation and crack
growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite element division of
building materials. Cem Concr Res 1976;6:773–82.
[32] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Oñate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J
Solids Struct 1989;25(3):299–326.
[33] Hibbitt D, Karlson B, Sorensen P. ABAQUS Version 6.4: Theory manual, users’
manual, verification manual and example problems manual. Hibbitt, Karlson and
Sorensen Inc; 2003.
[34] Mattock AH. Shear transfer in concrete having reinforcement at an angle to the
shear plane. ACI Spec Public 1974;42:17–42.
[35] Ding Fa-xing, Li Zhe, Cheng Shanshan, Yu Zhi-wu. Composite action of octagonal
concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns under axial loading. Thin-Walled Struct
2016;107:453–61.
[36] Hu X. Research on compressive performance and bearing capacity of RC short
columns strengthened with circular steel jacketing. Ph.D Thesis.Southwest
Jiaotong University; 2015. (in Chinese).
[37] Pan Y. Discuss Stress-strain relationship of core concrete in steel tube. J Harb
Arch&Civ Eng 1989;22(1):37–47 (in Chinese).
[38] Cai S. Modern Concrete Filled Steel Tubular Structures. Beijing: China
Communications Press; 2003 (in Chinese).