polymers
Article
Compressive Performance of Longitudinal Steel-FRP
Composite Bars in Concrete Cylinders Confined by Different
Type of FRP Composites
Maojun Duan , Yu Tang * , Yusheng Wang, Yang Wei
Citation: Duan, M.; Tang, Y.; Wang,
Y.; Wei, Y.; Wang, J. Compressive
Performance of Longitudinal
Steel-FRP Composite Bars in
Concrete Cylinders Confined by
Different Type of FRP Composites.
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051. https://
doi.org/10.3390/polym15204051
Academic Editors: Alexander Malkin
and Ahmed K. El-Sayed
Received: 24 August 2023
Revised: 2 October 2023
Accepted: 9 October 2023
Published: 11 October 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15204051
and Jiaqing Wang
College of Civil Engineering, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China; dmj@njfu.edu.cn (M.D.);
8210610637@njfu.edu.cn (Y.W.); wy78@njfu.edu.cn (Y.W.); jiaqingw@njfu.edu.cn (J.W.)
* Correspondence: yt@njfu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-13815865685
Abstract: This paper presents an experimental study on the compressive performance of longitudinal
steel-fiber-reinforced polymer composite bars (SFCBs) in concrete cylinders confined by different
type of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites. Three types of concrete cylinders reinforced
with (or without) longitudinal SFCBs and different transverse FRP confinements were tested under
monotonic compression. The results showed that the post-yield stiffness of SFCBs is higher when
confined with high elastic modulus carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite than with
low elastic modulus basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) composite. Decreasing confinement
spacing did not significantly improve the compressive strength of SFCBs in concrete cylinders. The
compressive failure strain of SFCBs could possibly reach 88% of its tensile peak strain in concrete
cylinders confined by CFRP sheets, which is significantly higher than the value (around 50%) in
previous studies. Existing design equations, which applied a strength reduction factor or a maximum
compressive strain of concrete to consider the compressive contributions of SFCBs in concrete
members, underestimate the load-carrying capacity of SFCB-reinforced concrete cylinders. The
design equation that considers the actual compressive stress of SFCBs gives the most accurate
prediction; however, its applicability and accuracy need to be verified with more experimental data.
Keywords: compressive behavior; steel-fiber-reinforced composite bar; concrete cylinder; fiber-reinforced
polymer confinement
1. Introduction
Modern performance-based seismic design (PBSD) requires structures to be repairable
after certain levels of earthquake [1–3]. However, traditional steel-reinforced concrete
(RC) structures usually experience uncontrollable damage during earthquakes due to the
elastoplastic characteristics of steel reinforcement [4,5]. Using a deformation-controllable
reinforcement appears to be an effective way to reduce the overall damage of RC structures
after an earthquake, while their existing design method could be applied [6–9]. Wu et al. [10]
proposed a steel-fiber-reinforced composite bar (SFCB), which is pultruded with an inner
core steel bar and an outer fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) layer, as shown in Figure 1a.
The outer longitudinal fibers wrap the inner steel bar, providing superior anti-corrosion
ability [11,12] and good interface bonding performance [13,14]. The composite effect of the
outer elastic FRP layer and inner elastoplastic steel bar gives the SFCB a stable positive
post-yield stiffness under both tensile and compressive loading [15], as shown in Figure 2.
This significantly reduces the residual displacement of RC structures and improves their
repairability [16,17].
However, a defect of FRP composites is that their compressive behavior is usually
considered to be lower than their tensile strength [18]. This limits their use in concrete
columns and walls according to current design standards or guidelines [19,20]. For SFCBs,
their compressive strength varies with a number of factors, such as the slenderness ratio (or
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 2 of 16

their compressive strength varies with a number of factors, such as the slenderness ratio
their compressive strength varies with a number of factors, such as the slenderness ratio
(or spiral spacing in concrete members), post-yield stiffness ratio, loading method (mon-
spiral spacing
(or spiral in concrete
spacing members),
in concrete post-yield
members), stiffness
post-yield ratio,ratio,
stiffness loading method
loading (monotonic
method (mon-
otonic or cyclic loading), and constraint method (non-constrained as a single rod or con-
or cyclicorloading),
otonic and constraint
cyclic loading), method (non-constrained
and constraint method (non-constrainedas a singleasrod or constrained
a single rod or con- in
strained
concrete inmembers).
concrete members). Generally, a compressive
strength ofstrength of 50% of their tensileis
strained in concrete Generally,
members). aGenerally,
compressive a compressive 50% of their
strength tensile
of 50% strength
of their tensile
strength
commonly is commonly
consideredconsidered
for SFCBs for SFCBsHowever,
[21–23]. [21–23]. However, this conclusion was drawn
strength is commonly considered for SFCBs [21–23].this conclusion
However, was drawn
this conclusion from
was tests
drawn
from
on tests
SFCBs on SFCBs
under under non-confinement
non-confinement or or low-stiffness-confinement
low-stiffness-confinement (with low (with
elastic low elas-
modulus)
from tests on SFCBs under non-confinement or low-stiffness-confinement (with low elas-
tic modulus)High-stiffness-confinement
conditions. conditions. High-stiffness-confinement (withmodulus,
(with high elastic high elastic modulus,
such as with asuch as
carbon
tic modulus) conditions. High-stiffness-confinement (with high elastic modulus, such as
with a carbon fiber-reinforced
fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) polymer (CFRP)
composite orcomposite
steel or steel confinement)
confinement) can effectively canrestrain
effec-
with a carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite or steel confinement) can effec-
tively
the restrain
lateral the lateral of
deformation deformation of the longitudinal
the longitudinal reinforcement
and improveand improve its
tively restrain the lateral deformation of thereinforcement
longitudinal reinforcement its compressive
and improve its
compressive
strength in strength
concrete in concrete
members members
[23–25]. This [23–25].
effect on This
the effect
compressive on the compressive
strength of SFCBs
compressive strength in concrete members [23–25]. This effect on the compressive
strength
has never of been
SFCBsstudied
has never beenIn
before. studied
additionbefore.
to Incompressive
the addition to the compressive
strength of SFCBs strength
in the
strength of SFCBs has never been studied before. In addition to the compressive strength
of SFCBs
material in the
phase, material
their phase,
design their
method design
in method
SFCB-reinforced in SFCB-reinforced
concrete structures concrete
is also struc-
crucial
of SFCBs in the material phase, their design method in SFCB-reinforced concrete struc-
tures
for is also crucial
achieving a safefordesign.
achieving a safe design.
However, because However,
existing because
design existing design equa-
tures is also crucial for achieving a safe design. However, becauseequations for FRP-RC
existing design equa-
tions for FRP-RC
columns were columnsdeveloped
generally were generally
assumingdeveloped
FRP is assuming
an elastic FRP is antheir
material, elastic material,
applicability
tions for FRP-RC columns were generally developed assuming FRP is an elastic material,
their
to applicability toconcrete
SFCB-reinforced SFCB-reinforced
columns concrete
needs to columns
be verified.needs to be verified.
their applicability to SFCB-reinforced concrete columns needs to be verified.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Figure 1. SFCB and reinforcement details of different cylinders: (a) SFCB; (b) Longi. reinf. ofofSF-
Figure 1. SFCB
Figure 1. SFCB and
and reinforcement
reinforcement details
details of
of different
different cylinders:
cylinders: (a)
(a) SFCB;
SFCB; (b)
(b) Longi.
Longi. reinf. SF-
reinf. of SF-
CF/SF-CD cylinders; (c) Longi. and trans. reinf. of SF-BS cylinder; (d) Trans. reinf. of SF-CF/CF cyl-
CF/SF-CD cylinders;(c)
CF/SF-CD cylinders; (c)Longi.
Longi.and
andtrans.
trans.reinf.
reinf.
of of SF-BS
SF-BS cylinder;
cylinder; (d)(d) Trans.
Trans. reinf.
reinf. of SF-CF/CF
of SF-CF/CF cyl-
inders; (e) Trans. reinf. of SF-CD/CD cylinders.
cylinders;
inders; (e)(e) Trans.
Trans. reinf.
reinf. of SF-CD/CD
of SF-CD/CD cylinders.
cylinders.
Strain
-0.02 0.00 Strain 0.02 0.04
-0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
Under Compression Under Tension
Under Compression Under Tension 1200
1200

800
800
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

400
Post-yield stiffness 400
Post-yield stiffness
Yield point
Yield point 0
0

-400
Yield point -400
Yield point Tensile curve
Post-yield stiffness Tensile curvecurve -800
Post-yield stiffness Compressive
Compressive curve -800

Figure
Figure 2.2.Tensile and
Tensile compressive
and stress–strain
compressive curves
stress–strain of the
curves ofSFCB
the testedtested
SFCB as a single rod under
as a single rod mon-
under
Figure 2. Tensile and compressive stress–strain curves of the SFCB tested as a single rod under mon-
otonic loading.
monotonic loading.
otonic loading.

This
Thispaper
paperpresents
presents an
an experimental
experimental study on the compressive
compressive performance
performance ofoflongi-
lon-
This paper presents an experimental study on the compressive performance of lon-
gitudinal SFCBsinin
tudinal SFCBs concrete
concrete cylinders
cylinders confined
confined withwith different
different typetype of composites.
of FRP FRP composites.
Three
gitudinal SFCBs in concrete cylinders confined with different type of FRP composites.
Three
types types of concrete
of concrete cylinders
cylinders reinforced
reinforced with (orwith (or without)
without) longitudinal
longitudinal SFCBs andSFCBs and
different
Three types of concrete cylinders reinforced with (or without) longitudinal SFCBs and
types of transverse
different types of FRP confinements
transverse were designed and
FRP confinements weretested under and
designed monotonic
testedcompres-
under
different types of transverse FRP confinements were designed and tested under
sion. The failure process of the test cylinders was discussed, as well as their stress–strain
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 3 of 16

curves. The compressive strength and possible failure strain of SFCBs were thoroughly an-
alyzed and discussed. Three types of existing design equations (with different approaching
methods to evaluate the load-carrying capacity of FRP-reinforced concrete cylinders) were
evaluated with the test results in this paper.

2. Experimental Program
2.1. Specimen Design
The experiment investigated the effect of different FRP composites (used as confine-
ments) on the compressive performance of longitudinal steel-fiber-reinforced concrete
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
(SFCB) cylinders. Three types of concrete cylinders were designed: (1) plain concrete 3 of 16
cylinders (C); (2) concrete cylinders reinforced with longitudinal SFCBs and transverse FRP
composites, i.e., SFCB and CFRP sheet-reinforced cylinders (SF-CFs) and SFCB and CFRP
strip-reinforced
monotonic cylinders
compression. The(SF-CDs); and (3)of
failure process concrete
the test cylinders
cylinders confined
was discussed,with only
as welltrans-
as
versestress–strain
their FRP composite, i.e.,The
curves. CFRP sheet-confined
compressive strengthcylinders (CFs) and
and possible CFRP
failure strip-confined
strain of SFCBs
cylinder
were (CDs). The
thoroughly CF and
analyzed and CD cylindersThree
discussed. weretypesused of as existing
control cylinders for the SF-CF
design equations (with
and SF-CD cylinders, respectively. The concrete cylinder
different approaching methods to evaluate the load-carrying capacity of FRP-reinforced was 300 mm high and had a
cross-sectional
concrete diameter
cylinders) of 150 mm.
were evaluated withThethe
thickness of the
test results concrete
in this paper.cover was 15 mm. For
comparison, two previously tested concrete cylinders [23] were also included: one was
reinforced
2. Experimental with longitudinal
Program SFCB and transverse BFRP spiral (ch-f-2); the other one was
only confined by a transverse BFRP spiral (f-2). These cylinders are referred to as SF-BS
2.1. Specimen Design
and BS, respectively, in Table 1. The cross-sections of each type of cylinder are illustrated in
FigureThe3.experiment investigated the effect of different FRP composites (used as confine-
ments) on the compressive performance of longitudinal steel-fiber-reinforced concrete
(SFCB)
Table 1.cylinders.
Design details Threeandtypes of concrete
test results cylinders were designed: (1) plain concrete cyl-
of cylinders.
inders (C); (2) concrete cylinders reinforced with longitudinal SFCBs and transverse FRP
Longi. Reinf. composites, i.e., SFCB and Trans.CFRP
Reinf. sheet-reinforced cylinders (SF-CFs) and SFCB and CFRP
Cylinder
Cylinder
Type Type
ρ l strip-reinforced
Type Layer
b fcylinders
or df sf (SF-CDs);
or s E and
l (3) concrete
ρ f cylinders
fl confined
Failure Peak with
Stressonly Peak
trans-
(%) verse FRP composite, (mm) i.e., (mm) (MPa)
CFRP sheet-confined (%) cylinders
(MPa) (CFs) Modeand CFRP (MPa) Strain
strip-confined
C — — —
cylinder —
(CDs). The — CF and —CD cylinders— were — used as—control cylinders
CC 43the SF-CF
for 0.004
and
SF-CF SFCB 3.0 cs 4 300 — 2155 1.8 36.5 — 170 0.039
SF-CD SFCB 3.0
SF-CD
cd
cylinders,
6
respectively.
36 18
The concrete
2155
cylinder
1.8
was
36.5
300 mm
SFF-CC
high and
167
had a cross-
0.048
SF-BS SFCB 3.0 sectional
bs — diameter8 of 150 mm. 23 The1935thickness7.3of the concrete
46.8 cover was 1554mm. For0.015
SF-SFF com-
CF — — cs
parison, 4
two 300
previously —
tested 2155
concrete 1.8
cylinders 36.5
[23] were also— included: 170one was0.039 rein-
CD — — cd 6 36 18 2155 1.8 36.5 CC 167 0.042
BS — — forced
bs with
— longitudinal
8 SFCB
23 and transverse
1935 7.3 BFRP spiral
46.8 (ch-f-2);
SF the other43 one was only
0.013
confined by a transverse BFRP spiral (f-2). These cylinders are referred to as SF-BS and BS,
Note: cs = CFRP sheet; cd = CFRP strip with a certain distance; bs = BFRP spiral; CC = concrete crush; SFF = SFCB
respectively,
split or fracture;inSF
Table
= BFRP1. The
spiralcross-sections of each
fracture. The data type
of SF-BS andof BS
cylinder are
cylinders areillustrated in Figure
from the ch-f-2 and f-2
specimens, respectively, from a previous paper [23].
3.

SFCB CFRP sheet/ SFCB BFRP spiral CFRP sheet/ BFRP spiral
CFRP strip CFRP strip

150mm

Concrete Concrete 15mm Concrete Concrete Concrete

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Figure
Figure3.3.Cross-sections
Cross-sectionsof
oftest
testcylinders:
cylinders:(a)
(a)C;
C;(b)
(b)SF-CF/SF-CD;
SF-CF/SF-CD;(c)
(c)SF-BS;
SF-BS;(d)
(d)CF/CD;
CF/CD;(e)(e)
BS.
BS.

Table The
1. Design
designdetails andof
details test
allresults of cylinders.
cylinders are shown in Table 1, where ρl is the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio; El is the transverse confinement stiffness as in Equation (1), in which
Longi. Reinf. Trans. Reinf. Cylinder
Cylinder Ef is the elastic modulus of FRP composites; ρf is the transverse reinforcement ratio as
ρl bf or df sf or s El ρf fl Failure Peak Stress Peak
Type Type Type Layer (2), in which tf is the thickness of the CFRP sheet/strip (=0.167 mm); bf is
in Equation
(%) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (%) (MPa) Mode (MPa) Strain
the widths of the CFRP sheet (=300 mm) and CFRP strip (=36 mm); D is the diameter of
C — — —the concrete
— — — — — — CC 43
column (=150 mm); sf is the spacing of the CFRP strip (=18 mm); Ass1 0.004
is the
SF-CF SFCB 3.0 cscross-sectional
4 300area of— 2155 1.8 36.5 — 170 0.039
the BFRP spiral (=50.2 mm2 ); dcor is the diameter of the concrete
SF-CD SFCB 3.0 cd 6 36 18 2155 1.8 36.5 SFF-CC 167 0.048
SF-BS SFCB 3.0 bs — 8 23 1935 7.3 46.8 SF-SFF 54 0.015
CF — — cs 4 300 — 2155 1.8 36.5 — 170 0.039
CD — — cd 6 36 18 2155 1.8 36.5 CC 167 0.042
BS — — bs — 8 23 1935 7.3 46.8 SF 43 0.013
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 4 of 16

core of the cylinder (=120 mm); s is the spacing of the BFRP spiral (=23 mm); and fl is the
transverse confinement strength as in Equation (3), in which ff is the tensile strength of
FRP composites. The negative sign in Equation (3) indicates that it is in a state of passive
constraint, which is opposite of the direction of lateral expansion.

ρf Ef
El = (1)
2

 4t f · bf ( For sheet or strip)
D b f +s f
ρf = 4Ass1
(2)
( For spiral )

dcor s

ρf ff
fl = − (3)
2
For the SF-CF, SF-CD, and SF-BS cylinders, four longitudinal SFCBs were embedded
in each cylinder, as shown in Figure 1b,c. The transverse confinement stiffness of the
FRP confinement is a crucial factor for the confined concrete strength [26]. This could
potentially affect the compressive performance of the SFCBs. Therefore, a similar transverse
confinement stiffness (from 1935 to 2155, as shown in Table 1) was designed for all confined
concrete cylinders. The transverse reinforcement settings of SF-CF/CF and SF-CD/CD are
shown in Figure 1d and 1e, respectively.

2.2. Material Properties

2.2.1. SFCB
The SFCB in this paper is pultruded with an inner steel bar (diameter = 10 mm) and an
outer FRP layer composed of 85 bundles of 2400-tex basalt fiber and epoxy resin. The mass
ratio of the fibers was approximately 85% of the outer FRP layer. The mechanical properties
of the SFCB and its components are shown in Table 2, where D refers to the diameter; Deq
refers to the equivalent diameter of the SFCB, which is calculated based on the principle
of equivalent flexural stiffness [22]. The characteristic strength and modulus values of the
SFCBs were obtained from the test results according to ASTM D7205M-06 [27]. Note that
the equivalent diameter of the SFCB was specifically used for calculating its characteristic
strength and modulus values. The tensile and compressive behavior of the SFCB is shown
in Figure 2.

Table 2. Mechanical properties of longitudinal reinforcement and its components.

Yield Tensile Elastic Post-Yield

D Deq Density
Type Elongation (%) Strength Strength Modulus Modulus
(mm) (mm) (g/cm3 )
(MPa) (MPa) (GPa) (GPa)
SFCB 16.8 12.9 4.5 — 376 1247 92 29
Inner steel bar 10.0 — 14.3 7.85 400 528 200 —
Basalt fiber 0.013 — 2.5 2.63 — 2250 90 —
Epoxy resin — — 6.1 1.06 — 95 3.6 —

2.2.2. CFRP Sheet/CFRP Strip/BFRP Spiral

The physical and mechanical properties of the CFRP sheet, CFRP strip, and BFRP
spiral are presented in Table 3. The CFRP sheet was manufactured by TORAY INDUSTRIES,
INC. Tokyo, Japan (product No. UT70-30G) [28]. The CFRP strip was hand cut from the
CFRP sheet, and therefore its physical and mechanical properties were identical to those of
the CFRP sheet. The characteristic strength and modulus values of the BFRP spiral were
minimum values guaranteed by the manufacturer.
 Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 to those of the CFRP sheet. The characteristic strength and modulus values of the 5BFRP
of 16
spiral were minimum values guaranteed by the manufacturer.

2.2.3.3.Concrete
Table Physical and mechanical properties of transverse reinforcements.
The mechanical properties of the concrete were obtained through tests according to
Fiber Weight Thickness
ASTM C469-14 Density [30]. The
[29] and ASTM C39M-21 Tensile Strength
elastic modulusElastic Modulus
and compressive
Type
(g/m2 ) (mm) (g/cm3 ) (MPa) (GPa)
strength of the concrete (c) were 29 GPa and 43 MPa, respectively.
CFRP sheet 300 0.167 1.80 4100 242
CFRP strip 300Table 3. Physical and
0.167 1.80of transverse reinforcements.
mechanical properties 4100 242
BFRP spiral — — 2.00 1281 53
Fiber Weight Thickness Density Tensile Strength Elastic Modulus
Type
(g/m )2 (mm) (g/cm )3 (MPa) (GPa)
2.2.3. Concrete
CFRP sheet 300 0.167 1.80 4100 242
The mechanical properties of the concrete were obtained through tests according
CFRP strip 300 0.167 1.80 4100 242
to ASTM C469-14 [29] and ASTM C39M-21 [30]. The elastic modulus and compressive
BFRP spiral — — 2.00 1281 53
strength of the concrete (c) were 29 GPa and 43 MPa, respectively.

2.3.Test
2.3. TestInstruments
Instrumentsand andSetup
Setup
Thecompressive
The compressiveloading
loadingtest
testwas
wasconducted
conductedonon a servo
a servo compression
compression machine
machine with
with a
a loading capacity of 3000 kN, as shown in Figure 4a. A thin gypsum
loading capacity of 3000 kN, as shown in Figure 4a. A thin gypsum cushion was placed on cushion was placed
on both
both the and
the top top and
bottombottom surfaces
surfaces of theofspecimen
the specimen to ensure
to ensure a uniform
a uniform distribution
distribution of theof
the compressive
compressive load. load. The loading
The loading process process was displacement-controlled
was displacement-controlled with a loading
with a loading speed
ofspeed
0.006of 0.006 mm/s.
mm/s.
Fourlinear
Four linearvariable
variabledifferential
differentialtransformers
transformers(LVDTs)
(LVDTs)were wereused
usedtotocapture
capturethe thecom-
com-
pressivedisplacement,
pressive displacement,asasshown
shownininFigure
Figure4.4.The
Thecompressive
compressivestrain
strainwas
wascalculated
calculatedasasthe the
mean
meanvalue
valueofofthe
thecompressive
compressivedisplacements
displacementsdivided
dividedby bythetheheight
heightofofthe
thecolumn.
column.The The
compressive
compressiveloading
loadingstress
stresswas
wascalculated
calculatedas asthe
theloading
loadingforce
force(obtained
(obtainedfrom fromthe theservo
servo
compression
compressionmachine)
machine)divided
dividedby bythe
thecross-section
cross-sectionarea
areaofofthe
thecolumn.
column.
Four
Fouraxial
axialstrain
straingauges
gauges(gauge
(gaugelength
length==22mm)mm)were
wereused
usedto tocapture
capturethe thecompressive
compressive
strains
strainsofofthe
theSFCBs.
SFCBs.TheThetwotwostrain
straingauges
gaugeson oneach
eachSFCB
SFCBwereweresetseton
onits
itsinner
innerandandouter
outer
surfaces, as shown in Figure 4b,c, and the mean value of these two strains
surfaces, as shown in Figure 4b,c, and the mean value of these two strains was regarded was regarded as
the compressive strain of the SFCB before bending. Two transverse strain
as the compressive strain of the SFCB before bending. Two transverse strain gauges (gauge gauges (gauge
length
length==22mm)
mm)were
wereused
usedto tocapture
capturethethecompressive
compressivestrains
strainsofofthe
theBFRP
BFRPspirals,
spirals,as asshown
shown
ininFigure ◦
Figure4c.4c.Four
Fourstrain
straingauges
gauges(gauge
(gaugelength
length==20 20mm)
mm)werewereplaced
placedatat90 90°around
aroundthe the
circumference
circumferenceof ofthe
thecolumn
columnininboth
boththetheaxial
axialand
andhoop
hoopdirections
directionstotocapture
capturethe theinitial
initial
axial
axialand
andhoop
hoopstrain
strainofofthe
thecolumn,
column,asasshown
shownininFigure
Figure4b,c.
4b,c.All
Allthe
thestrain
straingauges
gaugeswerewere
placed at the mid-height of the column.
placed at the mid-height of the column.

Servo compression machine

Servo compression machine SFCB Strain gauges SFCB
on BFRP spiral
Gypsum Spherical hinge Strain gauges Strain gauges
on SFCB on SFCB
Strain gauge Specimen LVDT LVDT
Strain gauges Strain gauges
on column Column on column
LVDT Column

Holder
Actuator

Fixed bed

(a) (b) (c)

Figure4.4.Test
Figure Testsetup:
setup: (a)
(a) Test
Test instruments;
instruments; (b)
(b) Strain
Straingauge
gaugedistribution
distributionininSF-CF/SF-CD
SF-CF/SF-CDcylinder; (c)
cylinder;
Strain gauge distribution in SF-BS cylinder.
(c) Strain gauge distribution in SF-BS cylinder.
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 6 of 16

3. Test Results and Discussions

3.3.1.
Test Results
General and Discussion
Observation and Stress–Strain Curve of Cylinders
3.1. General Observation and Stress–Strain Curve of Cylinders
The stress–strain curves and the typical failure modes of the cylinders are shown in
Figure 5 stress–strain
The and Figure 6,curves and the typical failure modes of the cylinders are shown in
respectively.
Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
3.1.1. For SF-CF and CF Cylinders
3.1.1. For SF-CF and CF Cylinders
The stress–strain curve of the SF-CF cylinder increased linearly during the initial
The stress–strain curve of the SF-CF cylinder increased linearly during the initial
loading, until a turning point occurred at a strain of 0.0043. After the turning point, the
loading, until a turning point occurred at a strain of 0.0043. After the turning point, the
stress continued to increase almost linearly but with a relatively small slope with the de-
stress continued to increase almost linearly but with a relatively small slope with the
velopment of the strain, as shown in Figure 5a. This indicates that a strain-hardening char-
development of the strain, as shown in Figure 5a. This indicates that a strain-hardening
acteristic was achieved for the SF-CF cylinder. No obvious damage was visualized for the
characteristic was achieved for the SF-CF cylinder. No obvious damage was visualized
SF-CF cylinder before the loading capacity of the servo compression machine was
for the SF-CF cylinder before the loading capacity of the servo compression machine was
reached, as shown in Figure 6a.
reached, as shown in Figure 6a.

180 Turning point 180 Turning point

Concrete crushing point
160 160

140 140
Short-range drop,
120 120 possible due to the fracture or split
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

of the outer FRP layer of the SFCB

100 100
Fluctuate increasing of the stress,
potentially due to the local confined concrete
80 80
crushing while the CFRP sheet remains intact,
which leads to a stress redistribution.
60 60

40 40

20 CF 20 CD
SF-CF SF-CD
0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Strain Strain
(a) (b)

60

( εsf-bs , σsf-bs )
50
σsf-bs - σbs

40
Stress (MPa)

( εbs , σbs )

30

20

10 Turning point
Possible BFRP spiral fracture BS
Possible SFCB fracture SF-BS
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Strain
(c)
Figure5.5.Stress–strain
Figure Stress–straincurves
curvesof
ofdifferent
differenttypes
typesofofcolumns:
columns:(a)
(a)CF
CFtype/SF-CF
type/SF-CFtype;
type;(b)
(b)CD
CDtype/SF-
type/SF-
CD type; (c) BS type/SF-BS type [23].
CD type; (c) BS type/SF-BS type [23].

Thestress–strain
The stress–strain curve
curve of
of the
the CF
CF cylinder
cylinder was
was similar
similar to
to that
that of
of the
the SF-CF
SF-CF cylinder.
cylinder.
However,after
However, afterthe
theturning
turningpoint,
point,the
thecompressive
compressivestress
stressof
ofthe
theCFCFcylinder
cylinderincreased
increasedless
less
stablythan
stably thanthat
that
of of
thethe SF-CF
SF-CF cylinder,
cylinder, but with
but with a fluctuatingly
a fluctuatingly increasing
increasing pattern,pattern,
as shownas
shown
in Figurein5a.
Figure
This5a.
wasThis was potentially
potentially duelocal
due to the to the local crushing
crushing of the confined
of the confined concrete,
concrete, which
led to stress redistribution in the cylinder, as shown in Figure 6b. The CFRP sheet remained
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 7 of 16

which led to stress redistribution in the cylinder, as shown in Figure 6b. The CFRP sheet
remained intact at the same time. This indirectly proved that a relatively low confinement
intactwas
effect at the same time.
achieved This
by the CFindirectly proved thattoathe
cylinder compared relatively low confinement
SF-CF cylinder, effect was
which achieved a
achieved by the CF cylinder compared to the SF-CF cylinder, which achieved
relatively strong confinement effect owing to the combination of the SFCBs and CFRPa relatively
strong confinement effect owing to the combination of the SFCBs and CFRP sheet.
sheet.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure
Figure6.6.Failure
Failuremodes
modesof
ofcylinders:
cylinders:(a)
(a)SF-CF;
SF-CF;(b)
(b)CF;
CF;(c)
(c)SF-CD;
SF-CD;(d)
(d)CD;
CD;(e)
(e)SF-BS;
SF-BS;(f)
(f)BS.
BS.

3.1.2.For
3.1.2. ForSF-CD
SF-CDandandCD CDCylinders
Cylinders
The stress–strain
The stress–strain curve
curve of
of the
the SF-CD
SF-CD cylinder
cylinder increased
increased linearly
linearly during
during the the initial
initial
loading stage until a turning point was reached, as shown in Figure 5b. At
loading stage until a turning point was reached, as shown in Figure 5b. At a strain of a strain of 0.0149,
a few microcracks
0.0149, appeared
a few microcracks on theonconcrete
appeared section,
the concrete between
section, the CFRP
between the CFRPstrips. As As
strips. the
loading process continued, the stress–strain curve continued to increase with
the loading process continued, the stress–strain curve continued to increase with a rela- a relatively
small small
tively slope slope
(compared to theto
(compared slope
the in the in
slope initial loading
the initial stage),stage),
loading and theandconcrete cracks
the concrete
continued to increase and dilate. At a strain of around 0.042, a small cracking
cracks continued to increase and dilate. At a strain of around 0.042, a small cracking sound sound was
was captured, and the stress–strain curve showed a short drop. This was possibly duethe
captured, and the stress–strain curve showed a short drop. This was possibly due to to
fracture or splitting of the outer FRP layer of the SFCB. At a strain of around 0.048, concrete
the fracture or splitting of the outer FRP layer of the SFCB. At a strain of around 0.048,
crushing was visible between the CFRP strips, as shown in Figure 6c. The stress–strain
concrete crushing was visible between the CFRP strips, as shown in Figure 6c. The stress–
curve then dropped sharply, indicating a total failure of the cylinder.
strain curve then dropped sharply, indicating a total failure of the cylinder.
The failure process of the CD cylinder was similar to that of the SF-CD cylinder. The
The failure process of the CD cylinder was similar to that of the SF-CD cylinder. The
CD cylinder also failed in a concrete crushing mode, with the CFRP strips remaining intact
CD cylinder also failed in a concrete crushing mode, with the CFRP strips remaining intact
after the test. This can be seen in Figure 6d. The compressive stress of the CD cylinder
after the test. This can be seen in Figure 6d. The compressive stress of the CD cylinder was
was higher than that of the SF-CD cylinder at the same compressive strain, as shown in
higher than that of the SF-CD cylinder at the same compressive strain, as shown in Figure
Figure 5b. This may be due to the fact that the longitudinal reinforcements have an adverse
5b. This may be due to the fact that the longitudinal reinforcements have an adverse im-
impact on the compressive strength of the confined concrete section. The longitudinal
pact on the compressive strength of the confined concrete section. The longitudinal
reinforcements can weaken the integrity of the section and potentially reduce its effectively
confined area. This effect could be more pronounced for the SF-CD than for the SF-CF,
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 8 of 16

since the effectively confined area of the SF-CD cylinder is smaller than that of the SF-CF
cylinder due to the distributed confinement mode of the SF-CD. It could exacerbate the
unfavorable impact of the longitudinal reinforcements on the compressive strength of the
confined concrete section.

3.1.3. For the SF-BS and BS Cylinders

The stress–strain curves of the SF-BS and BS cylinders have been reported in previous
studies [23]. These cylinders were confined with inner BFRP spirals, which resulted in
different failure processes from the outer-confined cylinders, such as the SF-CF, SF-CD, etc.
A few vertical cracks appeared when the strain reached around 0.004, and then a turning
point was observed on the stress–strain curve, as shown in Figure 5c. After the turning
point, the stress–strain curve continued to increase with a relatively small slope (compared
to the slope at the beginning). The vertical cracks expanded to the top and bottom of the
outer surface of the cylinder. When the strain reached around 0.015, a few continuous
fracture sounds were captured. This was presumably due to the BFRP spiral fracture, as
shown in Figure 6e. After that, the vertical cracks expanded rapidly with the development
of the loading process, and the concrete cover spalled gradually. For the SF-BS cylinder,
a fracture sound was further captured when the strain reached around 0.016. This was
possibly due to the fracture of the SFCB, as shown in Figure 6e.
The characteristic values of the stress–strain curves of the cylinders are shown in
Table 1. Note that the peak stresses of the SF-CF and CF cylinders were indicated with
the maximum loading stresses of the servo loading machine (=3000 kN), instead of the
actual peak stresses when those cylinders failed. A strain-hardening characteristic [23]
was revealed for all confined cylinders due to their well-confined conditions. The peak
stresses and strains of all confined cylinders were significantly higher than those of the
unconfined (plain) concrete cylinder. Especially for the cylinders confined with outer
CFRP sheet/strips (i.e., SF-CF, SF-CD, CF, CD), their peak stresses and strains reached
approximately three times the corresponding values of the inner BFRP spiral-confined
concrete cylinders (i.e., SF-BS, BS) due to their enlarged effectively confined areas and
the high-efficiency confinement method. This superior peak strain of the outer confined
cylinder could be useful to maximize the compressive performance of the embedded SFCBs.

3.2. Compressive Stress–Strain Curves of SFCBs in Concrete Cylinders Confined with Different
FRP Composites
3.2.1. Calculation Method of Compressive Stress–Strain Curve of SFCB
The compressive stress–strain relationship of the embedded SFCB was obtained by
subtracting the compressive stress of the FRP composites-confined concrete (for example,
CF) cylinder from the compressive stress of the longitudinal SFCBs and transverse FRP
composites-reinforced (for example: SF-CF) cylinder, as shown in Figure 5c. The calculation
method is provided in Equation (4), where Acol is the cross-sectional area of the concrete
column, and Asfeq is the equivalent cross-sectional area of the SFCB. Since the recorded
compressive strain step could vary for different cylinders, a normalization was first con-
ducted in MATLAB for each cylinder to obtain the same compressive strain step of 0.001.
The calculated stress–strain curves of the SFCB are shown in Figure 7, in which the tensile
stress–strain curve of a SFCB (tested as a single rod) is also provided for comparison. It is
worth noting that the stress–strain curve of the SFCB in SF-CD was not included in Figure 7
because the stress of the CD cylinder was generally higher than that of the SF-CD cylinder
in each strain step, and as a result, a positive stress–strain curve could not be extracted by
applying Equation (4).
 should be consistent with its tensile performance, both under unconfined compression
and in concrete cylinders [22]. As a result, the calculated compressive stress–strain curve
of SFCBs in SF-CF cylinders cannot accurately represent the actual compressive behavior
of a SFCB, and the curve must be modified.
(𝜎 / −𝜎 / )𝐴
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 𝜎 = 9 of(4)
16
4𝐴

900
Possible S10B85 fracture

750 Stable post-yield stiffness

600

Stress (MPa) Increased

450
linearly

300

150
SF-CF sample
SF-BS sample
Tensile curve
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
Strain

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Stress–strain
Stress–strain curves
curves of
of SFCBs
SFCBs in
in different
differentcylinders.
cylinders.

3.2.2.The compressive
Modification forstress–strain
the Calculated curve of a SFCB Stress–Strain
Compressive in SF-BS cylinders
Curvefits relatively well
of SFCBs
with the corresponding tensile curve, especially at the initial loading stage and at the
The unique post-yield stiffness behavior of a SFCB ensures that a turning point will
turning point, which indicates the yield of the inner steel bar of the SFCB. This shows the
occur on its stress–strain curve under both tensile and compressive loading once the load-
actual compressive behavior of SFCBs in concrete cylinders, which has been explained in
ing strain exceeds the yield strain of its inner steel bar. It is also well known that the tensile
previous studies [23]. The initial stress–strain curve of SFCBs in SF-CF cylinders was also
and compressive behavior of steel bars are almost identical when well confined in concrete
generally consistent with the trend of the corresponding tensile curve. However, there is a
structures. As a result, the turning point of the compressive stress–strain curve of a SFCB
large deviation between the turning points of these two curves, as shown in Figure 7. This
should coincide with its tensile stress–strain curve. Based on this principle, a modification
could be attributed to the following two reasons: (1) The difference in compressive stress
was made to the calculated stress–strain curve of the SFCB by adding a fixed value to both
between the confined concrete part in SF-CF and CF cylinders at the same compressive
the stress and strain in order to “move” it along the tensile stress–strain curve until the
strain state can be attributed to the different confinement effects of the longitudinal and
turning points of the compressive and tensile stress–strain curves coincided, as shown in
transverse confinement in SF-CF and the single transverse confinement in CF. In SF-CF
Figure 8.
cylinders, the longitudinal confinement provides additional lateral support to the concrete,
which increases the compressive strength of the confined concrete part. This is not the
case in CF cylinders, where the concrete is only confined in the transverse direction. As
a result, the compressive stress of the confined concrete part in SF-CF cylinders could
be slightly higher than that in CF cylinders at the same compressive strain state. (2) On
the other hand, the presence of SFCBs in a SF-CF cylinder could disrupt the integrity of
the confined concrete section, which could diminish the compressive performance of the
confined concrete. This phenomenon is fundamentally inconsistent with the findings of
previous studies, which demonstrated that the initial compressive behavior of a SFCB
should be consistent with its tensile performance, both under unconfined compression and
in concrete cylinders [22]. As a result, the calculated compressive stress–strain curve of
SFCBs in SF-CF cylinders cannot accurately represent the actual compressive behavior of a
SFCB, and the curve must be modified.
 
σs f −c f /s f −bs − σc f /bs Acol
σs−f = (4)
4As f eq

3.2.2. Modification for the Calculated Compressive Stress–Strain Curve of SFCBs

The unique post-yield stiffness behavior of a SFCB ensures that a turning point will
occur on its stress–strain curve under both tensile and compressive loading once the loading
strain exceeds the yield strain of its inner steel bar. It is also well known that the tensile
and compressive behavior of steel bars are almost identical when well confined in concrete
structures. As a result, the turning point of the compressive stress–strain curve of a SFCB
should coincide with its tensile stress–strain curve. Based on this principle, a modification
was made to the calculated stress–strain curve of the SFCB by adding a fixed value to both
the stress and strain in order to “move” it along the tensile stress–strain curve until the
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

3.2.3. Compressive Mechanism of SFCBs in Different FRP Composites-Confined Con-

Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 crete Cylinders 10 of 16
The stress–strain curves of SFCBs in different types of FRP composites-confined con-
crete cylinders are shown in Figure 9. The modified stress–strain curve generally reflects
the actual
turning compressive
points behavior and
of the compressive of the SFCB,
tensile particularly
stress–strain at the
curves initial loading
coincided, stage,
as shown in
where 8.
Figure it fits well with the corresponding tensile curve.

900
Turning point

750 Stable post-yield stiffness

600
Stress (MPa)

450
Increased
linearly

300
Moved

150
SF-CF sample
Calibrated curve from SF-CF sample
Tensile curve
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
Strain

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Modification
Modification method
method for
for the
the calculated
calculated stress–strain
stress–strain curve
curve of
ofSFCB
SFCBin
inSF-CF
SF-CFcylinder.
cylinder.

3.2.3.After
Compressive
the turning Mechanism
point, each of SFCBs in Different
compressive FRP Composites-Confined
stress–strain curve of the SFCB did not
Concrete Cylinders
follow the corresponding tensile curve but developed with a relatively low post-yield stiff-
ness.The Thisstress–strain
agrees well with curves of SFCBs
previous findingsin different types of
[23]. However, theFRP composites-confined
post-yield stiffness of the
concrete
confined cylinders
SFCB are
developed shown in
relatively Figurehigher 9. The
when modified
it was stress–strain
confined with curve
a generally
relatively
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 high
of 16
reflects
elastic modulus of FRP composite (CFRP sheet in SF-CF cylinder) than when it wasstage,
the actual compressive behavior of the SFCB, particularly at the initial loading con-
where
fined withit fitsawell with the
relatively lowcorresponding
elastic modulus tensile
of FRP curve.
composite (BFRP spiral in SF-BS cylin-
der). This is because the high elastic modulus of FRP confinement can effectively restrict
900
the transverse displacement of the SFCB in concrete Turning pointcylinders, and hence improve its com-
pressive performance after yield.
750
In addition, the CFRP sheet in the SF-CF cylinder provided superior confinement,
Stable post-yield stiffness
resultingof tensile
in a curve
significantly longer compressive
Stress increase due to local stress–strain curve for the SFCB than in the
600 concrete crush in CF cylinder
SF-BS cylinder. The possible SFCB failure strain in SF-CF reached almost 0.03, which is
Stress (MPa)

around 88% of the tensile peak strain (=0.034). Although the actual compressive peak
450
stress of the SFCB in SF-CF could not be directly obtained from the modified stress–strain
curve, the prolonged stress–strain curve Stress(or increased
decrease due to compressive peak strain) suggests
possible SFCB failure
300
that the SFCB was able to utilize
Post-yield stiffness increases
a relatively high percentage of its material strength when
confined with with relatively
increase of elastichigh
moduluselastic modulus FRP composites.
of FRP confinement
150
SF-CF sample
SF-BS sample
Tensile curve
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
Strain

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Stress–strain
Stress–strain curves
curves of
of SFCBs
SFCBs in
in different
different cylinders
cylinders after
after modification.
modification.

After the turning

3.3. Compressive point,
Peak Stress each compressive
of SFCBs stress–strain
Embedded in Concrete curveConfined
Cylinders of the SFCB did not
with Different
follow the corresponding
FRP Composites tensile curve but developed with a relatively low post-yield
stiffness. This agrees well with previous findings [23]. However, the post-yield stiffness
The compressive peak stress of the SFCB (σp_sf −) can be calculated by adding the max-
of the confined SFCB developed relatively higher when it was confined with a relatively
imum stress obtained from the stress–strain curve of the SFCB [i.e., the maximum stress
high elastic modulus of FRP composite (CFRP sheet in SF-CF cylinder) than when it was
value of SFCB ( σsf − ) in Figure 9] to the complementary compressive contribution of the
confined with a relatively
max low elastic modulus of FRP composite (BFRP spiral in SF-BS
cylinder). Thisan
concrete (with is area
because
equalthetohigh elastic modulus
the cross-sectional areaof of
FRPtheconfinement
SFCBs in thecan effectively
cylinder). The
restrict the transverse
calculation method isdisplacement of the SFCB
provided in Equation (5) in concrete
[23], wherecylinders, and hence improve
Asf is the cross-sectional area
its compressive
of the SFCB. performance after yield.
In addition, the CFRP sheet in the SF-CF cylinder provided superior confinement,
resulting in a significantly longer compressive σ A curve for the SFCB than in the
σ p− sf − = σ sf −stress–strain
+ c sf (5)
max Asfeq
A comparison of the compressive peak stress ratio [i.e., ratio of compressive peak
stress to tensile strength (σp_sf +)] of SFCBs tested in different conditions is shown in Figure
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 11 of 16

SF-BS cylinder. The possible SFCB failure strain in SF-CF reached almost 0.03, which is
around 88% of the tensile peak strain (=0.034). Although the actual compressive peak stress
of the SFCB in SF-CF could not be directly obtained from the modified stress–strain curve,
the prolonged stress–strain curve (or increased compressive peak strain) suggests that the
SFCB was able to utilize a relatively high percentage of its material strength when confined
with relatively high elastic modulus FRP composites.

3.3. Compressive Peak Stress of SFCBs Embedded in Concrete Cylinders Confined with Different
FRP Composites
The compressive peak stress of the SFCB (σp_sf − ) can be calculated by adding the
maximum stress obtained from the stress–strain curve of the SFCB [i.e., the maximum stress
value of SFCB ( σs f − ) in Figure 9 to the complementary compressive contribution of
max
the concrete (with an area equal to the cross-sectional area of the SFCBs in the cylinder).
The calculation method is provided in Equation (5) [23], where Asf is the cross-sectional
area of the SFCB.
σc As f
σp− s f − = σs f − + (5)
max As f eq
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16
A comparison of the compressive peak stress ratio [i.e., ratio of compressive peak stress
to tensile strength (σp_sf + )] of SFCBs tested in different conditions is shown in Figure 10.

1.0
SFCB (S10B49)
0.9 SFCB (S10B85)

0.8

0.7
Mean value of S10B49 (0.47)
0.6 Compressive peak stress ratio of
σp_sf- / σp_sf+

S10B85 in SF-CF cylinder (0.43)

0.5

0.4

0.3
Mean value of S10B85 (0.37)
0.2

0.1

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Spiral spacing

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Comparison of the compressive peak stress
stress ratio
ratio of
of SFCBs
SFCBs in
in concrete
concrete cylinders
cylinders confined
confined
by spirals
by spirals with
with different
different spacings.
spacings.

3.4. Evaluation
It has beenof shown
Design in
Equations
previous forstudies
Load-Carrying Capacity ofthe
that decreasing SFCB-Reinforced
spacing of theConcrete
spiral can
Cylinders
help increase the compressive strength of SFCBs in concrete cylinders [23]. As shown in
Figure 10,design
The the compressive
method for peak
thestress ratio increases
load-carrying withofthe
capacity decrease of the concrete
SFCB-reinforced spiral spacing.
cylin-
The same conclusion can be drawn from Figure 10 by comparing the compressive
ders is crucial to realizing a precise and cost-effective design of SFCB-reinforced concrete peak
stress ratio of
structures. the SFCBitinhas
However, thenot
SF-CF
beencylinder
studiedtobefore.
the compressive peak stress
Since the elastic ratios
failure mode of (deter-
SFCBs
in spiral-confined cylinders. The compressive peak stress ratio of the SFCB
mined by the outer fiber layer failure) of a SFCB is similar to that of FRP reinforcement in the SF-CFin
cylinder
concrete cylinders, the design equations for predicting the load-carrying capacity ofmean
(fully covered without spacing) reached 0.43, which is 16% higher than the FRP-
value of theconcrete
reinforced compressive peak can
cylinders stress
beratios
used of
to SFCBs
evaluatein concrete cylinders capacity
the load-carrying confined of bySFCB-
inner
spirals with different spacings
reinforced concrete cylinders. (0.37). However, it also indicates that this improvement
is notThere
significant by simply
are generally decreasing
three the spacings
types of design of the
equations forconfinements.
evaluating theThe maximum
load-carrying
compressive peak stress of SFCBs can still be approximately defined as 50% of their tensile
capacity of FRP-reinforced concrete cylinders, considering the variable compressive con-
strength, as in previous findings [22,23,31].
tributions of the longitudinal reinforcements for the concrete cylinders:
It is worth noting that the failure strain of the SFCB in the SF-CF cylinder reached
Method I: Considering the contribution of longitudinal reinforcement with a
almost 0.03, which indicates that a potentially higher compressive peak stress (compared
strength-reduction factor.
to the calculated compressive peak stress in this section) could be achieved in the test.
Tobbi et al. [31] set the compressive strength of FRP bars to 35% of their tensile
However, due to the lack of sufficient experimental data, the actual compressive peak stress
strength through an experimental study of GFRP bars-reinforced concrete columns. They
obtained Equation (6), where Ppre is the predicted load-carrying capacity of the reinforced
concrete cylinder; α1 is the capacity reduction coefficient of the column; f′c is the compres-
sive strength of the confined concrete; Ag is the cross-sectional area of the column; and αsf
is the strength reduction coefficient of the longitudinal reinforcement.
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 12 of 16

of the SFCB confined in high-stiffness FRP composites, as well as the factors affecting it,
remain unknown.

3.4. Evaluation of Design Equations for Load-Carrying Capacity of SFCB-Reinforced

Concrete Cylinders
The design method for the load-carrying capacity of SFCB-reinforced concrete cylin-
ders is crucial to realizing a precise and cost-effective design of SFCB-reinforced concrete
structures. However, it has not been studied before. Since the elastic failure mode (deter-
mined by the outer fiber layer failure) of a SFCB is similar to that of FRP reinforcement
in concrete cylinders, the design equations for predicting the load-carrying capacity of
FRP-reinforced concrete cylinders can be used to evaluate the load-carrying capacity of
SFCB-reinforced concrete cylinders.
There are generally three types of design equations for evaluating the load-carrying
capacity of FRP-reinforced concrete cylinders, considering the variable compressive contri-
butions of the longitudinal reinforcements for the concrete cylinders:
Method I: Considering the contribution of longitudinal reinforcement with a strength-
reduction factor.
Tobbi et al. [31] set the compressive strength of FRP bars to 35% of their tensile strength
through an experimental study of GFRP bars-reinforced concrete columns. They obtained
Equation (6), where Ppre is the predicted load-carrying capacity of the reinforced concrete
cylinder; α1 is the capacity reduction coefficient of the column; f0 c is the compressive
strength of the confined concrete; Ag is the cross-sectional area of the column; and αsf is the
strength reduction coefficient of the longitudinal reinforcement.
0
 
Ppre = α1 f c A g − As f + αs f σp− s f + As f eq where α1 = 0.85 and αs f = 0.35 (6)

Afifi et al. [32] conducted an experimental study on the axial bearing capacity of
concrete columns longitudinally reinforced with CFRP bars. They proposed a strength
reduction factor of 0.25 for predicting the compressive contribution of the longitudinal
reinforcement, as in Equation (7).
0
 
Ppre = α1 f c A g − As f + αs f σp− s f + As f eq where α1 = 0.85 and αs f = 0.25 (7)

Method II: Considering the contribution of longitudinal reinforcement with a maxi-

mum compressive strain.
Mohamed et al. [33], Hadi et al. [34], Hadhood et al. [35], and Xue et al. [36] conducted
experimental studies on the compressive behavior of GFRP bar-reinforced concrete cylin-
ders. They proposed the maximum compressive strains of FRP bars to be 0.002, 0.003,
0.0024, and 0.002, respectively, as shown in Equations (8)–(11).
0
 
Ppre = α1 f c A g − As f + 0.002E f As f eq where α1 = 0.85 (8)

0
 
Ppre = α1 f c A g − As f + 0.003E f As f eq where α1 = 0.85 (9)

0
 
Ppre = α1 f c A g − As f + 0.0024E f As f eq where α1 = 0.85 (10)

0
Ppre = α1 f c A g + 0.002E f As f eq where α1 = 0.85 (11)
Method III: Considering the contribution of longitudinal reinforcement with its actual
compressive strength in concrete cylinders obtained through tests.
Tang et al. [37] proposed a different approach to predict the load-carrying capacity of
FRP-reinforced concrete columns by considering the actual compressive strength of the FRP
 𝑃 = 𝛼 𝑓 ′ (𝐴 − 𝐴 ) + 0.0024𝐸 𝐴 where 𝛼 = 0.85 (10)

𝑃 = 𝛼 𝑓 ′ 𝐴 + 0.002𝐸 𝐴 where 𝛼 = 0.85 (11)

Method III: Considering the contribution of longitudinal reinforcement with its ac-
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 tual compressive strength in concrete cylinders obtained through tests. 13 of 16
Tang et al. [37] proposed a different approach to predict the load-carrying capacity
of FRP-reinforced concrete columns by considering the actual compressive strength of the
FRP in
bars bars in concrete
concrete cylinderscylinders
obtained obtained from
from tests. Thetests. Theequation
design design equation is provided
is provided in Equationin
Equation (12),
0 where f′cc is the compressive strength of concrete with only transverse rein-
(12), where f cc is the compressive strength of concrete with only transverse reinforcement.
forcement.
0
 
−
𝑃 ==
Ppre β f𝛽𝑓 ′ g −−
cc A(𝐴 A𝐴s f )++σ𝜎p− s f A whereβ𝛽==0.85
𝐴s f eq where 0.85 (12)
(12)
Note that
Note that the
the value
value of
of ff′0 cc used
used in
in this
this paper
paper is
is not
not the
the compressive
compressive strength
strength of
of plain
plain
concrete, but the compressive stress of the CF/CD/BS cylinders that
concrete, but the compressive stress of the CF/CD/BS cylinders that corresponds to the corresponds to the
failure strain of SFCBs in the SF-CF/SF-CD/SF-BS cylinders, respectively.
failure strain of SFCBs in the SF-CF/SF-CD/SF-BS cylinders, respectively. This is done to This is done to
offset the
offset the confinement
confinement concrete
concrete effect.effect. The
The predicted-to-experimental
predicted-to-experimental ratiosratios of
of different
different
design equations
design equations areare shown
shown in in Figure
Figure1111and
andTable
Table4,4,where
wherePexp is the
Pexp load-carrying
is the load-carryingca-
pacity ofof
capacity reinforced
reinforcedconcrete
concretecylinders
cylindersfrom
fromexperiments.
experiments.

1.2
SF-CF SF-CD SF-BS
0.96
1.0 0.92(Average)
0.87 0.86 0.86
0.82 0.83

0.8
Ppre./Pexp.

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Equation No.

Figure 11.
Figure 11. Predicted-to-experimental
Predicted-to-experimental ratios
ratios of
of the
the design
design equations
equations for
for predicting
predicting the
the test
test cylinders.
cylinders.

Table The predicted-to-experimental

4. Predicted-to-experimental ratios
ratio results of of
the Methods I and for
design equations II predicting
(0.80~0.96)theare
testgenerally
cylinders.
lower than 1, which indicates that Methods I and II underestimated the load-carrying ca-
Approaching Ppre. /P
pacity of SFCB-reinforced concrete cylinders. This
exp. is potentially due to the fact that the
Equation No.
Method combinationSF-CF SF-CD SF-BS
of longitudinal SFCB and transverse FRP compositeAverage Deviation
restraint exerts stronger
6 I confinement 0.86on concrete in0.94
SF-CF/SF-CD/SF-BS 0.96 cylinders than in the case of only
0.92 0.04 trans-
7 I verse FRP 0.83 0.91in CF/CD/BS 0.87
composite restraint 0.87 compressive0.03
cylinders. The actual contribu-
8 II 0.80 for SF-CF/SF-CD/SF-BS
tion of concrete 0.89 0.77
cylinders 0.82 than that of0.05
may be larger the corre-
9 II 0.82 0.91 0.84 0.86 0.04
10 II
sponding CF/CD/BS
0.81
cylinders.
0.89
Therefore, the0.80
compressive contribution
0.83
of concrete
0.04
in SF-
11 II CF/SF-CD/SF-BS
0.84 cylinders may0.93 be underestimated
0.81 when the compressive
0.86 strength
0.05 of con-
12 III crete in CF/CD/BS
0.88 cylinders—is predicted. This
1.04 conclusion can
0.96be further supported
0.08 by
comparing the predicted-to-experimental ratios of SF-CF cylinders to those of SF-CD cyl-
inders. The predicted-to-experimental ratios of SF-CF cylinders vary from 0.80 to 0.88,
The predicted-to-experimental ratios of Methods I and II (0.80~0.96) are generally
which are generally lower than those of SF-CD cylinders, which vary from 0.89 to 0.94.
lower than 1, which indicates that Methods I and II underestimated the load-carrying
This is because the relatively strong confinement effect for the concrete in SF-CF cylinders
capacity of SFCB-reinforced concrete cylinders. This is potentially due to the fact that the
combination of longitudinal SFCB and transverse FRP composite restraint exerts stronger
confinement on concrete in SF-CF/SF-CD/SF-BS cylinders than in the case of only trans-
verse FRP composite restraint in CF/CD/BS cylinders. The actual compressive contribution
of concrete for SF-CF/SF-CD/SF-BS cylinders may be larger than that of the corresponding
CF/CD/BS cylinders. Therefore, the compressive contribution of concrete in SF-CF/SF-
CD/SF-BS cylinders may be underestimated when the compressive strength of concrete in
CF/CD/BS cylinders is predicted. This conclusion can be further supported by compar-
ing the predicted-to-experimental ratios of SF-CF cylinders to those of SF-CD cylinders.
The predicted-to-experimental ratios of SF-CF cylinders vary from 0.80 to 0.88, which are
generally lower than those of SF-CD cylinders, which vary from 0.89 to 0.94. This is be-
cause the relatively strong confinement effect for the concrete in SF-CF cylinders generates
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 14 of 16

more errors in the estimation of the compressive contribution of concrete than those in
SF-CD cylinders.
The average predicted-to-experimental ratio of the two equations in Method I is
0.90, which is higher than the average predicted-to-experimental ratio of 0.84 for the four
equations in Method II. This finding is consistent with the results of previous studies [23]
on FRP-reinforced concrete cylinders, which showed that the strength reduction factor
is a more accurate way to predict the load-carrying capacity of FRP-reinforced concrete
cylinders than the ultimate compressive strain of concrete. This may be due to the fact
that the prediction of the ultimate compressive strain of concrete is more suitable for the
condition that the concrete cylinder is damaged due to the compression of the concrete.
However, this condition is not applicable to the concrete cylinders damaged due to the
failure of FRP bars (or SFCBs).
Method III provides the most accurate prediction of the load-carrying capacity of
SFCB-reinforced concrete cylinders, with an average predicted-to-experimental ratio of
0.96. This is likely due to the fact that Method III considers the actual compressive strength
of SFCBs in concrete cylinders. However, this method requires the compressive strength of
SFCBs to be obtained in advance. Therefore, further studies are required on the compressive
behavior of different SFCBs embedded in concrete cylinders to improve its applicability
and accuracy.

4. Conclusions
The compressive performance of SFCBs confined by different type of FRP composites
in concrete cylinders were experimentally studied in this paper. The following conclusions
can be drawn:
• The post-yield stiffness of the confined SFCBs developed to become relatively higher
when it was confined with a relatively high elastic modulus CFRP composite than
when it was confined with a relatively low elastic modulus of BFRP composite.
• The compressive failure strain of the SFCB in the SF-CF cylinder could have reached
88% of its tensile peak strain, which indicates that a relatively high utilization of the
material strength may be achieved for the SFCB restrained with relatively high elastic
modulus confinements.
• The design equations that consider the compressive contribution of SFCBs in concrete
cylinders with a strength reduction factor of the SFCB (in Method I) or a maximum com-
pressive strain of concrete (in Method II) generally underestimated the load-carrying
capacity of SFCB-reinforced concrete cylinders. In addition, this underestimation
appears more significant for the cylinder with a relatively strong confinement.
• The approaching method, which applies an actual compressive strength of the SFCB
for considering its compressive contribution in concrete cylinders (in Method III),
gave the most accurate prediction for the load-carrying capacity of SFCB-reinforced
concrete cylinders. However, its applicability and accuracy need to be verified with
more experimental data in the future.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.T.; methodology, M.D. and Y.T.; validation, Y.T. and
Y.W. (Yusheng Wang); formal analysis, Y.T.; investigation, Y.T. and Y.W. (Yang Wei); resources, Y.T.;
data curation, Y.T. and J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D. and Y.T.; writing—review and
editing, Y.T. and Y.W. (Yang Wei); visualization, Y.T. and J.W.; supervision, Y.T. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This project was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.:
52008211; Grant No.: 52127813).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 15 of 16

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. ASCE. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2010.
2. LRFDSEIS-2; Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. AASHTO: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
3. Calvi, G.; Priestley, M.; Kowalsky, M. Displacement based seismic design of structures. In Proceedings of the New Zealand
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Singapore, 5–7 December 2007; p. 740.
4. Priestley, M.N.; Seible, F.; Calvi, G.M. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1996.
5. Christopoulos, C.; Pampanin, S.; Nigel Priestley, M.J. Performance-based seismic response of frame structures including residual
deformations part I: Single-degree of freedom systems. J. Earthq. Eng. 2003, 7, 97–118. [CrossRef]
6. Jung, D.; Wilcoski, J.; Andrawes, B. Bidirectional shake table testing of RC columns retrofitted and repaired with shape memory
alloy spirals. Eng. Struct. 2018, 160, 171–185. [CrossRef]
7. Deogekar, P.S.; Andrawes, B. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Models for Shape Memory Alloy Retrofitted RC Bridge Columns.
J. Bridge Eng. 2018, 23, 12. [CrossRef]
8. Sun, Z.Y.; Sun, Y.L.; Zheng, Y.; Iwashita, K.; Zhang, J.; Wu, G. Experimental study on precast concrete columns reinforced with
bundled SFCBs under horizontal cyclic loading. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 74, 106882. [CrossRef]
9. Wei, Y.; Cheng, X.; Wu, G.; Duan, M.; Wang, L. Experimental investigations of concrete-filled steel tubular columns confined with
high-strength steel wire. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2019, 22, 2771–2784. [CrossRef]
10. Sun, Z.Y.; Wu, G.; Wu, Z.S.; Zhang, M.; Hu, X.Q. Experimental Study on the Bond Behavior between Steel Fiber Composite
Bar(SFCB) and Concrete. Earthq. Resist. Eng. Retrofit. 2009, 31, 21–27.
11. Dong, Z.-Q.; Wu, G.; Xu, Y.-Q. Bond and Flexural Behavior of Sea Sand Concrete Members Reinforced with Hybrid Steel-
Composite Bars Presubjected to Wet–Dry Cycles. J. Compos. Constr. 2017, 21, 04016095. [CrossRef]
12. Zhou, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Pan, J.; Sui, L.; Xing, F.; Sun, H.; Li, P. Experimental investigations on corrosion resistance of innovative
steel-FRP composite bars using X-ray microcomputed tomography. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 161, 272–284.
13. Solyom, S.; Di Benedetti, M.; Balázs, G.L. Bond of FRP bars in air-entrained concrete: Experimental and statistical study. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2021, 300, 124193. [CrossRef]
14. Liu, J.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, L.; Liu, Z.; Yang, J. Parameter Study of Interfacial Capacities for FRP–Steel Bonded Joints Based on 3D FE
Modeling. Materials 2022, 15, 7787. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Wu, G.; Wu, Z.-S.; Luo, Y.-B.; Sun, Z.-Y.; Hu, X.-Q. Mechanical properties of steel-FRP composite bar under uniaxial and cyclic
tensile loads. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2010, 22, 1056–1066. [CrossRef]
16. Sun, Z.-Y.; Wu, G.; Wu, Z.-S.; Zhang, J. Nonlinear Behavior and Simulation of Concrete Columns Reinforced by Steel-FRP
Composite Bars. J. Bridge Eng. 2014, 19, 220–234. [CrossRef]
17. Ibrahim, A.I.; Wu, G.; Sun, Z.-Y. Experimental study of cyclic behavior of concrete bridge columns reinforced by steel basalt-fiber
composite bars and hybrid stirrups. J. Compos. Constr. 2016, 21, 04016091. [CrossRef]
18. Zou, X.; Lin, H.; Feng, P.; Bao, Y.; Wang, J. A review on FRP-concrete hybrid sections for bridge applications. Compos. Struct. 2021,
262, 113336. [CrossRef]
19. ACI 4401R-15; Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
Bars. ACI: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2015.
20. CSA-S806-R17; Design and Construction of Building Structures with Fibre-Reinforced Polymers. CSA: Mississauga, ON,
Canada, 2017.
21. Tang, Y.; Sun, Z.; Wu, G.; Wei, Y. Experimental Study on Cyclic Behavior of SFCBs with Different Slenderness Ratios. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 2021, 33, 04021204. [CrossRef]
22. Tang, Y.; Sun, Z.; Wu, G. Compressive Behavior of Sustainable Steel-FRP Composite Bars with Different Slenderness Ratios.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1118. [CrossRef]
23. Tang, Y.; Sun, Z.; Wu, G.; Wei, Y. Compressive Behavior of Steel-FRP Composite Bars Confined with Low Elastic Modulus FRP
Spirals in Concrete Columns. J. Compos. Constr. 2022, 26, 04022058. [CrossRef]
24. Lin, H.; Zeng, H.; Feng, P.; Jiang, C.; Zhang, Y. Bond behavior of FRP-concrete wet-bonding interface under lateral confinement.
Eng. Struct. 2023, 292, 116536. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, Y.; Wei, Y.; Miao, K.; Li, B. A novel seawater and sea sand concrete-filled FRP-carbon steel composite tube column: Cyclic
axial compression behaviour and modelling. Eng. Struct. 2022, 252, 113531. [CrossRef]
26. Teng, J.; Chen, J.-F.; Smith, S.T.; Lam, L. FRP: Strengthened RC Structures; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2002; p. 266. ISBN
0-471-48706-6.
27. ASTM D7205/D7205M-06; Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars.
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
28. TORAY INDUSTRIES, INC. Torayca™ Fabric. Available online: https://www.cf-composites.toray/resources/data_sheets/#anc2
2023 (accessed on 21 August 2023).
Polymers 2023, 15, 4051 16 of 16

29. C469-14; Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression. ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
30. C39M-21; Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
31. Tobbi, H.; Farghaly, A.S.; Benmokrane, B. Concrete Columns Reinforced Longitudinally and Transversally with Glass Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Bars. ACI Struct. J. 2012, 109, 551–558.
32. Afifi, M.Z.; Mohamed, H.M.; Benmokrane, B. Axial Capacity of Circular Concrete Columns Reinforced with GFRP Bars and
Spirals. J. Compos. Constr. 2014, 18, 04013017. [CrossRef]
33. Mohamed, H.M.; Afifi, M.Z.; Benmokrane, B. Performance Evaluation of Concrete Columns Reinforced Longitudinally with FRP
Bars and Confined with FRP Hoops and Spirals under Axial Load. J. Bridge Eng. 2014, 19, 04014020. [CrossRef]
34. Hadi, M.N.S.; Karim, H.; Sheikh, M.N. Experimental Investigations on Circular Concrete Columns Reinforced with GFRP Bars
and Helices under Different Loading Conditions. J. Compos. Constr. 2016, 20, 04016009. [CrossRef]
35. Hadhood, A.; Mohamed, H.M.; Ghrib, F.; Benmokrane, B. Efficiency of glass-fiber reinforced-polymer (GFRP) discrete hoops and
bars in concrete columns under combined axial and flexural loads. Compos. Part B Eng. 2017, 114, 223–236. [CrossRef]
36. Xue, W.; Peng, F.; Fang, Z. Behavior and Design of Slender Rectangular Concrete Columns Longitudinally Reinforced with
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars. ACI Struct. J. 2018, 115, 311–322. [CrossRef]
37. Tang, Y.; Sun, Z.; Wei, Y.; Zou, X. Compressive behavior and design method of BFRP bars constrained with a BFRP spiral with
different spacings in concrete members. Eng. Struct. 2022, 268, 114757. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.