Accepted Manuscript

Investigation of Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Beams Strengthened with CFRP

against Impact Loads

Dikshant Saini, Behrouz Shafei

PII: S0263-8223(18)31762-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.09.057
Reference: COST 10203

To appear in: Composite Structures

Received Date: 14 May 2018

Revised Date: 27 August 2018
Accepted Date: 18 September 2018

Please cite this article as: Saini, D., Shafei, B., Investigation of Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Beams Strengthened
with CFRP against Impact Loads, Composite Structures (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.
2018.09.057

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Investigation of Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Beams Strengthened
with CFRP against Impact Loads

Dikshant Saini1 and Behrouz Shafei, Ph.D., P.E.2

1
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Iowa
State University, Ames, IA 50011. E-mail: dikshant@iastate.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA 50011. E-mail: shafei@iastate.edu (corresponding author)

Abstract
As a promising strengthening solution, carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets have been
used to improve the structural response of concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs) under service loads,
given the durability and high strength-to-weight ratio provided by CFRP. Despite the wealth of
knowledge available in the literature on how CFRP sheets contribute to strengthening CFSTs
under static loads, there is a research gap regarding how such structural components respond to
lateral impact loads, due to vehicle and vessel collision, as well as wind and water-borne debris
impact. This was the motivation of the current study to establish a computational framework
supported by experimental tests to evaluate the performance of CFST beams with and without
CFRP under a set of impact scenarios. For this purpose, a range of influential aspects related to
CFRP, concrete, and steel, as well as impact energy, are investigated. Such a holistic assessment
provides unique information to answer fundamental and practical questions regarding the use of
CFRP for strengthening of CFST beams against impact loads. To further assist with the proper
configuration of CFRP-strengthened CFST beams, a section analysis method is developed and
validated as the outcome of this study.

Keywords: Concrete-Filled Steel Tube; CFRP; Impact Load; Damage Assessment; Absorbed
Energy; Section Analysis

1
1 Introduction

Use of concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs) for various structural applications has witnessed a
significant growth in the last decade. CFSTs are known to offer a variety of advantages, including
high strength, ductility, and energy absorption capacity (compared to their conventional reinforced
concrete counterparts). Examples of use of CFSTs include high-rise buildings, road and railway
bridges, transmission towers, and offshore structures. During their service life, CFSTs are
commonly exposed to lateral impact loads, due to vehicle and vessel collision, as well as wind and
water-borne debris impact. Such impact scenarios can cause partial or extensive damage to CFSTs,
especially if they are not designed for an appropriate level of impact loads. Such situations in
addition to the fact that the intensity and frequency of extreme impact events have constantly
increased over time highlight the need to efficient strengthening solutions for this important
category of structural components. Among various strengthening solutions, fiber reinforced
polymer (FRP) products are proven to offer a promising choice, given their high
strength-to-weight ratio, superior mechanical properties, corrosion resistance, and extended
durability. Within the last decade, a number of studies were completed on the use of FRP products
for the strengthening of various metallic structures [1–11]. Among various types of FRP, carbon
fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) provides not only a very high tensile strength, but also an elastic
modulus comparable to conventional steel materials. CFRP sheets have shown a great potential in
the strengthening of different hollow steel structures [12–19]. Shaat and Fam [14] conducted a set
of tests to strengthen hollow section columns using CFRP, particularly to control local buckling.
Seica et al. [18] investigated the flexural performance of steel-CFRP composite beams under static
loads. The specimens were cured in both air and seawater. Compared to the specimens with no
CFRP, the ultimate strength of the retrofitted specimens was found to increase by 16%-27% and
8%-21% when cured in the air and seawater, respectively. Photiou et al. [19] investigated the
strengthening of artificially degraded rectangular hollow section (RHS) steel beams. Under four
point bending tests, all the strengthened beams were found to achieve the plastic capacity of the
original, undamaged RHS beams. This confirmed the capability of CFRP sheets in transforming
the load carrying capacity of hollow steel structures.

In a separate set of studies, the structural performance investigations were extended from static to
dynamic tests. For example, Ferrier and Hamelin [20] performed static and dynamic impact load

2
tests on a set of RC beams and columns with and without CFRP strengthening. The static and
dynamic load capacity of the specimens were found to increase by 62% and 88% after
strengthening, respectively. Alam et al. [21,22] examined the use of CFRP sheets to strengthen the
square hollow section (SHS) steel columns against lateral impact loads. In a complementary study,
impact tests were performed on the FRP-strengthened circular hollow section (CHS) steel columns
to understand the possible failure modes and the effect of fiber orientation [23]. Yan and Yali [24]
reported that increasing the steel tube thickness and adding the CFRP transverse confinement can
enhance the impact resistance of CFRP-strengthened CFST columns. Under transverse impact
tests, Alam et al. [25,26] studied the effect of CFRP thickness, bond length, and adhesive strength
on the structural behavior of CFRP-strengthened CFSTs. In another study, Shakir et al. [27]
investigated the dynamic response of conventional and recycled aggregate CFSTs with and
without CFRP jacketing. Strengthening with CFRP was found to increase the stiffness of CFSTs.
Alam et al. [28] conducted a set of drop hammer tests on the CFST specimens with and without
CFRP. CFRP breakage, debonding, cracking, and fiber damage were among the failure modes
observed.

From the current literature, it is clear that CFRP sheets can significantly enhance the impact
resistance of metallic structures, including CFSTs. However, the existing studies on
CFRP-strengthened CFSTs are limited in terms of scope and details. Despite the wealth of
information provided by the conducted tests, there are several fundamental and practical questions
that have remained unanswered. To address such questions, the current study develops the
first-known computational framework that investigates the dynamic response of a wide range of
CFST beams with and without CFRP through impact simulations. Upon validation of the
developed finite-element (FE) models with experimental test results, a holistic study is conducted
to assess various response measures, including internal forces and deflections, as well as energy
absorbed during impact. This study is then extended to investigate an array of influential
parameters related to CFRP, concrete, and steel properties, as well as impact energy. Further to
providing an in-depth understanding of how each of the identified parameters influences the
response of CFRP-strengthened CFST beams, a relationship is introduced between the initial
impact energy and the absorbed energy. This relationship can be employed as a performance
measure for this category of structural components. To address the long-standing gap between the

3
analysis and design of CFST beams strengthened with CFRP, the outcome of this study is used to
develop a novel design procedure that employs a section analysis method to determine the
dynamic moment capacity of CFST beams with and without CFRP. The accuracy is confirmed
through a comparison of the absorbed energy ratio predicted through this design procedure with
the same ratio extracted from the impact simulation results. This will equip researchers, engineers,
and stakeholders with an easy-to-implement procedure to decide on the materials of choice and
design strategies needed for the strengthening of CFST beams.

2 Modeling Details and Assumptions

To understand the structural response of CFRP-strengthened CFST beams under lateral impact
loads, FE simulations are conducted using the LS-DYNA software package. This software
package is capable of evaluating the nonlinear behavior of structures under high-velocity impact,
crash, and drop tests. Considering that the outcome of the current study is intended to be used for
various structural applications, a set of representative CFST beam models are generated. The
generated set includes the models that replicate the CFST beam specimens subjected to
experimental tests by Deng et al. [29] and Alam et al. [28]. This not only expands the scope of
investigations, but also ensures that the FE models produce reliable results. The details of FE
models, including material properties and boundary conditions, are provided in this section.

2.1 Structural Elements

The FE models for the CFST consist of concrete core and steel tube, as well as CFRP sheet, which
is included only for the strengthened cases. The concrete core and steel tube are modeled using an
eight-node solid element. Considering the small thickness of the CFRP sheet, it is modeled using a
four-node thin shell element with the Belytschko-Tsay formulation. Under dynamic loads, the slip
resistance between the concrete core and steel tube is high enough to assume a perfect bond.
Therefore, a perfect bond is assumed between the concrete core and steel tube by merging the
nodes. An hourglass control is employed to avoid non-physical deformation modes, a.k.a.,
hourglass modes. This provides geometry-dependent hourglass shape vectors that are orthogonal
to both linear velocity and rigid body fields. Such an hourglass control is recommended for the
structural analysis problems involving impact.

4
2.2 Constitutive Model for Concrete

Continuous Surface Cap Model (CSCM) is used in the current study to capture the response of
concrete subjected to impact loads. This model, which was originally developed for the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to evaluate the crash resistance of roadside
safety structures, has been successfully employed for various impact simulations (e.g., [30–32]).
The CSCM is an elastic-plastic damage model that also incorporates strain rate effects. There are
six categories of formulations that collectively form this material model: (1) elastic update, (2)
plastic update, (3) yield surface, (4) damage, (5) strain rate effect, and (6) kinematic hardening. A
three-dimensional yield surface is used in this model. For the calculation of this yield surface, three
stress invariants are employed, including the first invariant of the stress tensor, the second
invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor, and the third invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor. At
each time step, if the stress falls beyond the yield surface, the material shows a plastic behavior,
with the possibility of experiencing damage. Damage is formulated through both strain softening
and modulus reduction. Strain softening is defined with a drop in the stress as straining continues
beyond the peak strength. Modulus reduction, on the other hand, is included through decreasing
the slope of the stress-strain curve, as the cycles of loading and unloading progress.

The strain rate effect implemented in the model captures the expected increase in the concrete
strength as the strain rate increases. This is applied to the plasticity surface, damage surface, and
fracture energy through a dynamic increase factor (DIF). Following the recommendation of CEB
Bulletin 187 [33], two bilinear formulas are used to express the DIF of concrete under compression
and tension as a function of strain rate. The dynamic increase factor for the compressive strength of
concrete (CDIF) is given by:

for
(1)
for

where fc is the dynamic compressive strength at the strain rate of , fcs is the static compressive
strength at the strain rate of , , , in which
-6 -1
. Equation 1 is given for the strain rates ranging from 30×10 to 300 s , where the
static strain rate, , is assumed to be 30×10-6 s-1.

5
The dynamic increase factor for the tensile strength of concrete (TDIF) is defined using a modified
version of the CEB formula developed by Malvar and Crawford [34]. The modified formula for
the TDIF remains similar to the CDIF formula, except that the change in the slope (in the log-log
scale) occurs at 1 s-1, supporting the experimental test data. The TDIF can be expressed as:

for
(2)
for

where ft is the dynamic tensile strength at the strain rate of , fcs is the static compressive strength at
the strain rate of , , , in which . Equation 2
is given for the strain rates ranging from 10-6 to 160 s-1, where the static strain rate is assumed to be
10-6 s-1.

2.3 Constitutive Model for Steel

A piecewise linear plasticity model is used to model the steel material with an invoked viscoelastic
formulation that captures the kinematic strain hardening. The steel strain rate effect (SDIF) is
included using the Cowper and Symonds model, which scales the yield stress using the following
factor:

(3)

where is the strain rate, and C and p are two constants determined from Abramowicz and Jones
[35]. The strain hardening part is modeled using the following relationship [36].

(4)

where is the engineering stress, is the engineering strain, is the yield stress, is the ultimate
strength, is the hardening modulus, and is the strain at the onset of strain hardening
(commonly assumed as 0.003). The engineering stress and strain are then converted to true stress
and strain before a simulation begins.

6
2.4 Constitutive Model for CFRP

An enhanced composite damage model is used to model the CFRP sheets (fiber/epoxy resin) based
on the Chang-Chang laminate failure criteria. The included criteria, which represent tensile and
compressive failure in the longitudinal and transverse direction of each unidirectional ply, can be
expressed as:
 Tensile failure in the longitudinal direction:

(5)

 Compressive failure in the longitudinal direction:

(6)

 Tensile failure in the transverse direction:

(7)

 Compressive failure in the transverse direction:

(8)

where and are the tensile and compressive strength in the longitudinal direction,
respectively, and are the tensile and compressive strength in the transverse direction,
respectively, and are the stress in the longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively,
is the in-plane shear strain and is the shear strength of CFRP sheet. The parameter β is used to
scale the shear stress term in the tensile failure criterion defined for the fiber. Similar to the
stress-based criteria, failure is defined using the strain-based criteria as well. With such criteria,
failure occurs if the failure strain is reached, after which the stiffness is set to zero.

2.5 Contact Algorithm

An automatic surface-to-surface algorithm is used to control the interactions between the CFST
and the impacting object. For this purpose, the static and dynamic coefficients of friction are set to

7
0.7 and 0.6, respectively. To bond a CFRP sheet to the CFST, an epoxy adhesive is commonly
used in the field. Thus, an automatic, one-way, surface-to-surface algorithm with a tiebreak is
employed to realistically model the contact between the CFST and CFRP. This contact is also
capable of accounting for the delamination of CFRP sheets (if it occurs). The failure of contact
between the CFST and CFRP takes place after the following criterion is reached:

(9)

where and are the normal and shear stress at the interface of the CFST and CFRP, and NFLS
and SFLS are the tensile and shear failure stress of the epoxy adhesive, respectively.

3 Model Validation with Experimental Test Results

Prior to performing the main FE simulations, the accuracy of the modeling details and assumptions
is evaluated in detail. For this purpose, the experimental tests that have investigated the structural
performance of CFST (with and without CFRP) under a drop hammer impact are utilized. To
validate the FE models, the geometry, boundary conditions, and loading scenarios used in the drop
hammer tests are replicated. The convergence characteristics of the model is ensured by
considering different mesh sizes. For concrete core and steel tube, meshes in the radial direction
are established in a size of 5 mm. Mesh in the longitudinal direction is 5 mm as well. The Mesh
pattern for the CFRP sheets is adopted similar to the outer steel tube surface. The data are sampled
at a frequency of 100 kHz.

The first set of validation studies are performed based on the drop hammer tests conducted by
Deng et al. [29] on CFST beams. The beams under consideration were simply-supported and
impacted at the mid-span by a drop hammer. Two different types of drop hammer, i.e., cylindrical
tup and wedge tup, were used. The tests included different weights and heights to capture a range
of failure modes. During the tests, the strain gauges that were attached to the tup measured the
impact force. Displacement was also recorded under the specimen at the mid-span. For validation
purposes, the impact response of two specimens, i.e., CFT-A1 and CFT-A2, is investigated in the
current study. The beams had a support-to-support clear span of 3,150 mm. Using a flat-headed
cylindrical impactor with a 150 mm diameter, CFT-A1 was impacted by a drop weight of 525 kg

8
from a height of 3.0 m. In order to increase the kinetic energy, CFT-A2 was impacted by a drop
weight of 625 kg from a height of 10.2 m. The FE model developed to represent the experimental
test setup is shown in Figure 1(a). It must be noted that due to the symmetry of geometry, boundary,
and loading conditions, only half of each specimen was modeled. The symmetric boundary
condition was applied at the sections in the plane of symmetry. The bottom of the roller support
was kept fixed in all directions. The drop hammer was given an initial velocity corresponding to
the drop height in the free-falling direction. Figure 1(b) shows how the impact force time history
obtained from the FE simulation of CFT-A1 is compared with the one recorded during the
experimental test. It can be clearly seen that the impact force predicted using the FE simulation
follows the pattern observed during the test. For a more detailed comparison, the maximum impact
force (Fm), maximum displacement ( ), and residual displacement ( are employed as
parameters of interest. As summarized in Table 1, the FE models are found to successfully predict
the response of CFST beams subjected to impact tests performed by Deng et al. [29].

In a separate study, Alam et al. [23] performed a set of drop hammer tests on CFST specimens with
and without strengthening with CFRP. A total of sixteen specimens were prepared and tested under
lateral impact loads. For this purpose, a flat-headed cylindrical impactor with a 100 mm diameter
and a 50 mm height was used. The total mass of the impactor was 592 kg. The CFST beams were
simply-supported and had a support-to-support clear span of 1,300 mm. In this case, the support
conditions were modeled by fixing the nodes in the Z directions. Contrary to the test setup used by
Deng et al. [29], the rebound movement of the beams at their supports was restrained using soft
rubber bands. In the absence of material properties and configuration details of those bands, they
were not included in the FE models developed in the current study. The CFRP sheets used for the
strengthening of the CFST specimens had an ultimate tensile strength of 987 MPa. The thickness
of each CFRP sheet was 0.52 mm. The drop height was varied from 0.55 m to 1.27 m to achieve an
initial velocity between 3.3 m/s and 5.0 m/s. In the current study, the FE models are validated with
the test results on CFT-B-V1, CFT-B-V2, CCFT-L-V1, and CCFT-H-V1 specimens. V1 and V2
indicate 5.0 m/s and 3.3 m/s, respectively. The specimens designated with CFT-B are bare steel
specimens, whereas the specimens with CCFT are CFRP wrapped. In the CFRP-wrapped
specimens, L and H indicate that the fiber orientation is in the longitudinal and hoop direction,
respectively. In Figure 2(a), the impact force time history obtained from the FE simulation of

9
CCFT-L-V1 is compared with the one recorded during the test. It can be observed that the FE
model fully captures the main peak impact forces. However, in the later stages, a deviation from
the test results occurs. This can be attributed to the elastic stiffness of the rubber bands included in
the test setup. As summarized in Table 1, the maximum impact force, maximum displacement, and
residual displacement are in a very good agreement with the experimental test results. This
confirms that the developed FE models are capable of providing reliable results and can be further
employed for the performance assessment of CFSTs (with and without CFRP) under various
impact scenarios.

4 Simulation Scenarios and Results

Upon the completion of investigations performed for validation purposes, a set of impact
simulations are conducted on the CFST beams with and without CFRP. This is achieved through a
matrix of 42 models with different material properties, section characteristics, and impactor
masses and velocities. The simply supported beams are impacted at mid-span by a cylindrical
hammer. The boundary conditions are modeled by fixing the support nodes in the Z direction.
Details for the FE models developed for this study are given in Table 2. In this table, CFT and
CFFT represent the CFST beam models without and with CFRP, respectively. Based on the clear
span length, the models are labeled as A, B, and C, representing a support-to-support distance of
3150, 1800, and 1300 mm, respectively. While the models in the A and B series have a diameter of
219 mm and a steel tube thickness of 3.7 mm, the models in the C series have a diameter of 114.3
mm and a steel tube thickness of 4.5 mm. The CFRP-strengthened members are classified based on
the number of layers and CFRP orientation.

Beyond the main label, the number and orientation of CFRP layers are listed for each model. The
number of sheets is reflected in the number of letters after the hyphen sign in each label. The
orientation of each CFRP layer is determined by either H or L, indicating that the fibers are either
in the hoop or longitudinal direction. In this study, the thickness of each individual layer of CFRP
is assumed equal to 0.52 mm. In addition to CFRP details, the developed models cover a range of
steel and concrete material properties, as listed in Table 2. To capture various impact energies,
different drop heights and masses are chosen. While the models in the A and B series are subjected
to a drop hammer with a diameter of 150 mm and a mass of 625 kg, the diameter and mass of the

10
drop hammer are changed to 100 mm and 592 kg for the models in the C series. In terms of
geometry, a flat-headed drop hammer with a circular cross section is used for all the models.

In summary, the developed FE models cover the following ranges of key parameters: (a)
; (b) ; (c) MPa; (d) MPa; and (e)
, where D is the CFST diameter, t is the steel tube thickness, L is the clear span of the
CFST beam, is the yield stress of steel, is the unconfined compressive strength of concrete,
and is the rotation of the CFST beam at the support. A number of response measures, such as
internal forces and deflections, as well as energy absorbed during impact, are recorded for each
simulation case. This makes a direct comparison among the introduced models possible.

4.1 Internal forces and deflections

The performance of the CFRP-strengthened CFST models subjected to various lateral impact
loads is evaluated using a range of response measures, including displacement, shear, and moment
diagrams, as well as damage contours, along the length of each CFST. Vertical sections are defined
prior to each simulation at every 100 mm along the length of each CFST model to extract the
response measures of interest. With the drop hammer applied in the Z direction, the displacement
is determined at the centroid of each section in the Z direction. The shear force is also recorded in
the same direction. The force generated in the other directions are found relatively small. The
bending moment is reported about the Y axis. As mentioned earlier, only half of each CFST is
modeled due to the symmetry of geometry, boundary, and loading conditions.

The displacement, shear, and moment diagrams are plotted in Figure 3(a)-(c) for different time
instances (ranging from 0.002 to 0.020 sec). As can be seen in Figure 3(a), the recorded
displacement is maximum at the mid-span. While the sections close to the mid-span also show a
similar deflection, an approximately linear deflection profile is captured for the rest of the length.
Shear forces are found to be largest near the support and mid-span sections. On the other hand, the
bending moment is found to be maximum near the mid-span. This is an important observation,
indicating the possibility of formation of a plastic hinge at or near the mid-span. A moment
reversal from positive to negative is observed at the initial stage of simulation. This is due to the

11
fact that the load is not transferred to the supports at the time of impact. Local deformations are
dominant as compared to global deformations at early stages. This is clear in the displacement
profile shown in Figure 3(a) for 0.002 sec after the impact initiates. While no vertical displacement
is observed between 0 and 900 mm, the vertical displacement beyond 900 mm toward the impact
location is significant. Figure 4 illustrates the von Mises stress distribution in the CFRP layer and
steel tube for CFFT-A1-HH with a drop height of 3.0 m. As expected, the stress increases in the
CFRP toward the mid-span and end support. In the CFRP sheet, the maximum von Mises stress is
found to be 900 MPa, as compared to 495 MPa in the steel tube. The FE model successfully
captures the delamination between the CFRP and steel tube as magnified in Figure 4(a). From the
stress contours, CFRP layers undergo localized deformations, while the steel tube experiences
gradual changes of stress between the support and mid-span (Figure 4(b)). The stress contours also
confirm the formation of a plastic hinge at the mid-span.

The contribution of CFRP sheets is further studied by comparing the displacement response of the
CFST beam models with and without CFRP. Figure 5 presents the displacement response of a
CFST model from the A series at the mid-span for the drop heights of 3.0 m and 6.0 m. It is
observed in Figure 5(a) that the maximum displacement at the mid-span is reduced by 12% only
with the application of two CFRP layers. Figure 5(b) compares the mid-span displacement
response of CFT-A1-B, which has no CFRP, with CFFT-A1-L, CFFT-A1-LL, and CFFT-A1-LLL,
which have one, two, and three layers of CFRP, respectively. Under a drop height of 6.0 m,
increasing the number of CFRP layers noticeably reduces the displacement response.

4.2 Absorbed energy

Considering each FE simulation as a closed system with no additional source of energy included,
the total energy of the system must remain constant. The kinetic energy introduced to the system in
the current study is through bodily motion, i.e., drop hammer. During each impact simulation, the
energy is transferred from the drop hammer to the CFST model. Considering that the material
models used for the CFST allow permanent deformations and damage, the CFST model absorbs
energy through the contribution of concrete core, steel tube, and CFRP sheet (if used). However, if
a rupture occurs, the energy absorbed by the system remains constant even with increasing the
impact energy. This highlights the importance of quantification of the energy that is absorbed by

12
CFRP-strengthened CFST beams for a given impact energy. Since it is observed that a plastic
hinge forms at the mid-span, the bending moment and rotation recorded at the mid-span are
employed to calculate the absorbed energy. From the performance perspective, it is favorable to
design a structural member that absorbs the minimum possible amount of impact energy, and as a
result, experiences the least deformation and damage. The energy absorbed by the CFST models
with and without CFRP is compared through the moment-rotation curves generated for the
mid-span of a CFST model from the A series for the drop heights of 3.0 m and 6.0 m (Figure 6). It
is clear that the CFST models without CFRP absorb more energy by undergoing larger
deformations as compared to the same models strengthened with CFRP.

5 Investigation of Influential Parameters

A comprehensive investigation is performed in the current study on the parameters that directly
influence the structural response of CFRP-strengthened CFSTs subjected to lateral impact. This
provides an in-depth understanding of how the analysis and design of this category of structural
components can be improved for various applications. The main parameters of interest include the
CFRP, concrete, and steel properties that define the structural capacity, in addition to the initial
impact energy, capturing the loading demand on the structural system.

5.1 Effect of CFRP properties

CFRP properties, such as thickness, orientation, and type, play a central role in the impact response
of a CFRP-strengthened CFST. The effect of the CFRP thickness is examined by changing the
number of CFRP layers. For the CFFT-C1 model with one, two, and three layers of CFRP, Figure
7(a) illustrates the maximum moment recorded at the mid-span and the absorbed energy ratio
under an impact velocity of 5.0 m/s. The absorbed energy ratio is defined as the ratio of the energy
received by the CFST to the initial impact energy. It can be seen that the maximum moment
increases, while the absorbed energy ratio decreases with the increase of CFRP layers. This can be
attributed to the fact that the stiffness of the CFST increases with adding to the number of CFRP
layers. The energy absorption ratio decreases from 0.85 to 0.79 if three layers of CFRP are used
instead of only one. This reduction, which implies that less energy is dissipated by global
deformations, is consistent with the relation identified between the stiffness and number of CFRP

13
layers. The effect of increasing the number of CFRP layers can also be observed from the
comparison of von Mises stresses in Figure 7(b). In this figure, the stress contours for the CFFT-C1
models with one and three CFRP layers are compared.

Unidirectional CFRPs are strong in one axis and weak in the perpendicular one. Therefore, the
strengthening of a structural member can be governed by the orientation of CFRP layers. The
effect of CFRP orientation is studied by investigating the impact response of the CFFT-C2 model,
which includes two layers of CFRP. Three different orientations of CFRP are examined (i.e., HH,
LH, and LL). For this set of comparisons, the unidirectional CFRP with the nominal strength of
2,280 MPa is used. Figure 8(a) illustrates the maximum moment recorded at the mid-span and the
absorbed energy ratio obtained for the three models. While the maximum moment is found to
remain similar in all the three models, the absorbed energy ratio is minimized for the LH and LL
models. This is supported well with the von Mises stresses shown in Figure 8(b). It is observed that
while the CFFT-C1-HH model undergoes a CFRP rupture in the longitudinal direction due to the
presence of fibers only in the hoop direction, the CFFT-C1-LL model experiences only a minimum
damage due to CFRP delamination under the same initial impact energy. The reduction of the
extent of damage from the HH to the LL model highlights the need to include CFRP layers with a
strong axis along the length of CFSTs to obtain the maximum effectiveness under lateral impact
loads.

The CFRP products available in the market have different strengths (and prices). To understand the
effect of mechanical properties of CFRP, three different types of CFRP sheets with an elastic
modulus of 75 GPa, 130 GPa, and 138 GPa and a nominal tensile strength of 987 MPa, 1500 MPa,
and 2280 MPa are examined. The detailed properties of the CFRPs of choice are shown in Table 3.
Under an impact velocity of 5.0 m/s, Figure 9(a) presents the maximum moment recorded at the
mid-span and the absorbed energy ratio obtained for the CFFT-C1-LH model strengthened with
three CFRP products. While the highest maximum moment is recorded for the CFRP with the
lowest elastic modulus and nominal tensile strength, the change in the maximum moment from one
product to another is not significant compared to the change captured in the absorbed energy ratio.
This ratio is found to decrease from 0.85 to 0.79 as the elastic modulus and nominal tensile
strength of CFRP increase. The reported observation is consistent with the von Mises stresses

14
shown in Figure 9(b). This is particularly evident in the global deformation of the model and the
delamination of CFRP layers at the mid-span.

5.2 Effect of concrete and steel properties

The effect of unconfined compressive strength of concrete on the energy absorbed by the
CFRP-strengthened CFST is studied by examining a range of strengths from 30 MPa to 60 MPa.
Figure 10 shows the maximum moment and absorbed energy ratio for different unconfined
compressive strengths of concrete (in 10 MPa intervals) for the CFFT-C1-L model. These two
response measures remain almost unchanged for the concrete strengths considered in the current
study, which represent the ones commonly used in the practice. This observation can be supported
with the fact that due to the lateral confinement provided by steel tube and CFRP layers, the
concrete strength increases enough to properly resist the impact loads, even if a concrete with a
(relatively) low compressive strength is used.

The effect of steel properties on the impact response of CFRP-strengthened CFSTs is evaluated
through the investigation of two important parameters, i.e., steel tube thickness and yield stress.
The parameters of choice are known to not only affect the primary strength provided by the steel
tube, but also influence the confinement provided to the concrete core. The effect of steel tube
thickness is explored by studying the three thicknesses of 4.5 mm, 5.0 mm, and, 5.5 mm, while
maintaining a constant yield stress of 317 MPa. On the other hand, the effect of yield stress is
studied by considering a range from 250 MPa to 500 MPa, while maintaining a constant thickness
of 5.0 mm. The maximum moment, absorbed energy ratio, and displacement time-history are
recorded to understand the response of various CFRP-strengthened CFST models. Figure 11(a)-(b)
show the results for the CFFT-C1-LH model with different steel tube thicknesses under an impact
velocity of 5.0 m/s. With increasing the thickness, it is found that the maximum moment increases,
while the absorbed energy ratio decreases. This is attributed to the fact that the flexural stiffness of
the CFST improves as the steel tube thickness increases. The CFST with a higher stiffness
experiences less global deformation, leading to a lower energy absorption. The energy absorption
ratio is found to decrease from 0.85 to 0.77 if the steel tube thickness changes from 4.5 mm to 5.5
mm. A similar observation is made for the displacement response, which reflects a decreasing
trend in both maximum and residual displacements with the increase of steel tube thickness

15
(Figure 11(b)). Figure 11(c) illustrates the maximum moment recorded at the mid-span and
absorbed energy ratio for four different yield stresses considered for steel. With an increase in the
yield stress, the maximum moment induced in the CFST increases by 64%. This is paired with a
decrease in the absorbed energy ratio from 0.87 to 0.82. The reported trends indicate that the CFST
undergoes larger plastic deformations if a steel tube with a lower yield stress is used. This is
supported well with the displacement response shown in Figure 11(d). The mid-span maximum
displacement is found to decrease from 86.8 mm to 56.0 mm with increasing the yield stress of
steel from 250 MPa to 500 MPa. The simulation results highlight the importance of steel properties
in the performance of CFRP-strengthened CFSTs subjected to impact loads.

5.3 Effect of impact energy

The structural response of the CFST changes, depending on the initial impact energy. To
investigate this important aspect, the impact velocity of the cylindrical hammer is changed in a
range from 2.0 m/s to 5.0 m/s (with 1.0 m/s intervals). The mass of the impactor, however, remains
constant in this series of simulations. Figure 12(a) shows the relationship between the bending
moment and rotation at the mid-span of the CFFT-C1-L model. As expected, it is observed that the
rotation at the mid-span significantly increases with increasing the impact velocity. This is
consistent with the increased absorbed energy, which can be calculated from the area under the
moment-rotation curve. Both maximum moment and absorbed energy ratio are found to increase
with increasing the impact velocity, as captured in Figure 12(b). With changing the velocity from
2.0 m/s to 5.0 m/s, the maximum moment increases by 20%, while the absorbed energy ratio
changes from 0.75 to 0.86. This is consistent with the displacement time-history recorded at
different impact velocities (Figure 12(c)). The obtained time-histories show that the maximum
displacement increases from 17.0 mm to 71.3 mm, and the residual displacement increases from
11.4 mm to 63.2 mm if the impact velocity changes from 2 m/s to 5 m/s. This indicates the critical
role of identification of representative impact scenarios to obtain a realistic assessment of loading
demand on the structural system.

16
6 Design under Impact Loads

From the FE simulations conducted on all the CFST models listed in Table 2, the relationship
between the absorbed energy ( ) and initial impact energy ( ) is determined (Figure 13). This
relationship can be further employed to estimate the amount of energy absorbed by similar
CFRP-strengthened CFSTs. Based on the absorbed energy, the expected dynamic moment ( )
can be calculated as: , where is the rotation limit. The next step is to determine
the dynamic moment capacity ( ) of the CFRP-strengthened CFST. This capacity is calculated
through a section analysis method, noting that the load carrying capacity of a structural member is
higher under dynamic loads (compared to static loads of the same magnitude) due to strain rate
effects. To calculate the dynamic moment capacity, the static moment capacity ( ) is first
calculated and then magnified with appropriate dynamic increase factors. For this purpose, using a
structural configuration similar to the one used for FE simulations, a section analysis method is
developed. A full bond is considered between the CFRP and the steel tube and between the steel
tube and the concrete core. This means that the bond strength, particularly between the CFRP and
the steel tube, is chosen large enough to prevent any delamination. Assuming that the steel tube
does not experience a local buckling, the stress-strain relationship for the steel tube can be
expressed using the formulation given by Raynor et al. [38].

(10)

where is the stress in the steel tube, is the yield stress, is the ultimate strength, is the
stress at the start of strain hardening, is the elastic modulus, is the slope of the yield plateau,
is the strain in the steel tube, is the yield strain, is the failure strain, is the strain at the
start of strain hardening, and is the parameter that defines the curvature of the strain hardening
curve. The total lateral pressure ( acting on the concrete core is calculated using the following
expression:

(11)

17
where is the diameter of the concrete core, is the thickness of the steel tube, is the
thickness of the CFRP layer, and is the stress in the CFRP layer. Due to lateral confinement,
the increase in the compressive strength and ductility of concrete in compression must be captured
as well. The increase in the compressive strength is calculated using the equation suggested by
Mander et al. [39]. The following equation has been particularly developed for the confinement
provided by steel jackets:

(12)

where and are the unconfined and confined stress of concrete, respectively. The axial
compressive stress of concrete ( ) can be defined using the following equation:

(13)

where

(14)

(15)

where is the compressive strain of concrete, is the confined strain of concrete, and is the
strain corresponding to the unconfined concrete strength, respectively. The coefficient r is given
by:

(16)

where and are the elastic and secant modulus of concrete, respectively.

For a CFRP-strengthened CFST section subjected to pure bending, the strain and stress
distributions are shown in Figure 14. The contribution of CFRP is ignored in the compression zone.
A detailed section analysis is performed by finding the moment (and the curvature associated with
it) under a range of strains starting from zero. The static moment capacity ( ) of the section is
predicted through an iterative procedure, which first calculates the neutral axis depth:

18
 (17)

(18)

where is the stress in the concrete, is the stress in the steel tube, is the stress in the
CFRP layer, and , , and are the distance from the neutral axis depth for each of the
concrete, steel, and CFRP sections, respectively.

To determine the dynamic moment capacity ( ) of the CFRP-strengthened CFST, the strain rate
effect is introduced to the calculations. For this purpose, the time required to reach the maximum
strain is employed to determine the expected strain rate. This expected rate is then included in
Equations 1, 2, and 4 to determine the dynamic increase factors for concrete under compression,
concrete under tension, and steel, respectively. Strain rate effects are not considered for CFRP as it
is not yet clear whether the strain rate has a noticeable effect on the CFRP strength or not. With the
identified factors, the section analysis is updated and the dynamic moment capacity ( ) is
determined. The maximum strain in the CFRP layers is checked in every iteration. The CFRP layer
is removed from the analysis if the strain reaches the failure strain of CFRP. This is reflected in the
drop in the moment-rotation plots generated using the introduced section analysis method (Figure
15). Figure 15 (a)-(d) illustrate the moment-rotation relationship for the CFFT-A1-L,
CFFT-A1-HH, CFFT-C1-L, and CFFT-C1-LL, respectively. The accuracy of the proposed
procedure is evaluated by comparing the absorbed energies calculated from the area under the
obtained moment-rotation plots with those directly extracted from FE simulations. In Figure 15,
the shaded areas cover a range of rotations starting from zero to the beginning of the residual
rotation obtained from the FE simulations. As reported in the plots, the absorbed energies
calculated using the section analysis method and the FE simulation are in a close
agreement. This confirms that the introduced method can be efficiently employed to design the
CFRP-strengthened CFSTs under impact loads.

7 Conclusions

In this study, the structural performance of CFRP-strengthened CFST beams was studied in detail
under various impact scenarios. For this purpose, a set of representative CFST beam models were

19
developed using the material properties that can properly capture the nonlinear response and
structural damage in the concrete core, steel tube, and CFRP sheet subjected to lateral impact loads.
The developed models were first validated with two sets of experimental test results. The
effectiveness of strengthening of CFST beams with CFRP was then studied through a range of
response measures, including internal forces and deflections, as well as energy absorbed during
impact. The obtained results showed that after the addition of CFRP, the maximum displacement
and absorbed energy ratio of the developed CFST beam models were reduced up to 20% and 10%,
respectively. While the percentage of response improvement can be further increased with adding
to the layers of CFRP or using the CFRP materials of high strength, this finding shows the promise
of CFRP to prevent the failure of CFSTs under impact loads.

To understand the contribution of multiple parameters that can influence the response of
CFRP-strengthened CFST beams, a comprehensive matrix of CFST beam simulations were
developed. This matrix were employed to quantify, for the first time, how the CFRP, concrete, and
steel properties affect the main response measures of CFRP-strengthened CFST beams. This was
achieved through a detailed investigation of maximum moments, absorbed energy ratios,
displacement time-histories, and stress contours extracted from the conducted impact simulations.
It was found that the number, orientation, and mechanical properties of CFRP can significantly
affect the response measures. This can be critical to decide on the best choices of CFRP and how
they must be used for maximum efficiency. A similar observation was made for the steel tube, as it
has a central role to provide the expected structural capacity, as well as confinement to the concrete
core. The concrete strength, however, was found to be not a critical factor for impact resistance,
especially due the confinement effects in the CFST beams.

Through a separate set of simulations, the effect of initial impact energy was explored. Given the
extent of change in the main response measures, depending on the impact velocity, it was
concluded that a realistic estimate of the impact load plays a significant role to avoid an overdesign
or underdesign of CFSTs. Based on the extensive set of simulations performed in the current study,
a power equation was derived to estimate the energy absorbed by CFRP-strengthened CFST
beams as a function of initial impact energy. This was employed to introduce a novel section

20
analysis method to predict the dynamic moment capacity of CFRP-strengthened CFST beams.
This can be immediately used by researchers, engineers, and stakeholders to decide on the
materials of choice and design strategies needed to improve the existing CFST beams vulnerable to
impact loads.

References

[1] Schnerch D, Rizkalla S. Flexural strengthening of steel bridges with high modulus CFRP
strips. J Bridg Eng 2008;13:192–201.
[2] Tavakkolizadeh M, Saadatmanesh H. Strengthening of steel-concrete composite girders
using carbon fiber reinforced polymers sheets. J Struct Eng 2003;129:30–40.
[3] Al-Saidy AH, Klaiber FW, Wipf TJ. Repair of steel composite beams with carbon
fiber-reinforced polymer plates. J Compos Constr 2004;8:163–72.
[4] Colombi P, Poggi C. An experimental, analytical and numerical study of the static behavior
of steel beams reinforced by pultruded CFRP strips. Compos Part B Eng 2006;37:64–73.
[5] Miller TC, Chajes MJ, Mertz DR, Hastings JN. Strengthening of a steel bridge girder using
CFRP plates. J Bridg Eng 2001;6:514–22.
[6] Nozaka K, Shield CK, Hajjar JF. Effective bond length of carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer
strips bonded to fatigued steel bridge I-girders. J Bridg Eng 2005;10:195–205.
[7] Sallam HEM, Ahmad SSE, Badawy AAM, Mamdouh W. Evaluation of steel I-beams
strengthened by various plating methods. Adv Struct Eng 2006;9:535–44.
[8] Hosseini A, Ghafoori E, Motavalli M, Nussbaumer A, Zhao X-L, Koller R. Fatigue
strengthening of cracked steel plates using prestressed unbonded CFRP reinforcements.
Fourth Conf. Smart Monit. Assess. Rehabil. Civ. Struct. (SMAR 2017), 2017.
[9] Aljabar NJ, Zhao XL, Al-Mahaidi R, Motavali M, Ghafoori E, others. Fatigue tests on steel
plates with inclined cracks strengthened with different CFRP properties. Austroads Bridg.
Conf. 10th, 2017, Melbourne, Victoria, Aust., 2017.
[10] Aljabar NJ, Zhao XL, Al-Mahaidi R, Ghafoori E, Motavalli M, Powers N. Experimental
investigation on CFRP strengthened steel plates with inclined cracks. Maintenance, Monit
Safety, Risk Resil Bridg Bridg Networks 2016:202.
[11] Ghafoori E, Motavalli M, Botsis J, Herwig A, Galli M. Fatigue strengthening of damaged
metallic beams using prestressed unbonded and bonded CFRP plates. Int J Fatigue

21
 2012;44:303–15.
[12] Kabir MH, Fawzia S, Chan THT, Badawi M. Numerical studies on CFRP strengthened steel
circular members under marine environment. Mater Struct 2016;49:4201–16.
[13] Gao XY, Balendra T, Koh CG. Buckling strength of slender circular tubular steel braces
strengthened by CFRP. Eng Struct 2013;46:547–56.
[14] Shaat A, Fam A. Axial loading tests on short and long hollow structural steel columns
retrofitted using carbon fibre reinforced polymers. Can J Civ Eng 2006;33:458–70.
[15] Shaat A, Fam AZ. Slender steel columns strengthened using high-modulus CFRP plates for
buckling control. J Compos Constr 2009;13:2–12.
[16] Haedir J, Zhao X-L. Design of short CFRP-reinforced steel tubular columns. J Constr Steel
Res 2011;67:497–509.
[17] Fawzia S, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao XL, Rizkalla S. Strengthening of circular hollow steel
tubular sections using high modulus CFRP sheets. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:839–45.
[18] Seica M V, Packer JA, Ramirez PG, Bell SAH, Zhao X. Rehabilitation of tubular members
with carbon reinforced polymers. Tubul. Struct. Symp., vol. 11, 2006, p. 365.
[19] Photiou N, Hollaway LC, Chryssanthopoulos MK. Strengthening of an artificially degraded
steel beam utilising a carbon/glass composite system. Adv. Polym. Compos. Struct. Appl.
Constr., Elsevier; 2004, p. 274–83.
[20] Ferrier E, Hamelin P. Dynamic behaviour of externally bonded CFRP: Application to
reinforced concrete column externally reinforced under impact loading. Proc. Int. Symp.
Bond Behav. FRP Struct., 2005, p. 509–18.
[21] Alam MI, Fawzia S. Numerical studies on CFRP strengthened steel columns under
transverse impact. Compos Struct 2015;120:428–41.
[22] Alam I, Fawzia S, Liu X, Batuwitage CRJ. Dynamic simulation of CFRP strengthened steel
column under impact loading 2014.
[23] Alam MI, Fawzia S, Zhao X-L, Remennikov AM. Experimental Study on
FRP-Strengthened Steel Tubular Members under Lateral Impact. J Compos Constr
2017;21:4017022.
[24] Yan X, Yali S. Impact behaviors of CFT and CFRP confined CFT stub columns. J Compos
Constr 2012;16:662–70.
[25] Alam MI, Fawzia S, Liu X. Effect of bond length on the behaviour of CFRP strengthened

22
 concrete-filled steel tubes under transverse impact. Compos Struct 2015;132:898–914.
[26] Alam MI, Fawzia S, Zhao X-L. Numerical investigation of CFRP strengthened full scale
CFST columns subjected to vehicular impact. Eng Struct 2016;126:292–310.
[27] Shakir AS, Guan ZW, Jones SW. Lateral impact response of the concrete filled steel tube
columns with and without CFRP strengthening. Eng Struct 2016;116:148–62.
[28] Alam MI, Fawzia S, Zhao X-L, Remennikov AM, Bambach MR, Elchalakani M.
Performance and dynamic behaviour of FRP strengthened CFST members subjected to
lateral impact. Eng Struct 2017;147:160–76.
[29] Deng Y, Tuan CY, Xiao Y. Flexural behavior of concrete-filled circular steel tubes under
high-strain rate impact loading. J Struct Eng 2011;138:449–56.
[30] Saini DS, Shafei B. Performance Evaluation of Concrete Filled Steel Tube Bridge Piers
under Vehicle Impact. Transp. Res. Board 94th Annu. Meet., 2017.
[31] Saini DS, Shafei B. Calibration of Barge Models for the Reliable Prediction of Impact Force
on Bridge Piers. Struct. Congr. 2017, 2017, p. 27–36.
[32] Saini DS, Shafei B. Numerical Investigation of CFRP-Composite-Strengthened RC Bridge
Piers against Vehicle Collision. Transp. Res. Board 95th Annu. Meet., 2018.
[33] CEB Bulletin Number 187, Concrete Structures under impact and Impulsive Loading –
Synthesis Report. 1988.
[34] Malvar LJ, Crawford JE. Dynamic increase factors for concrete. 1998.
[35] Abramowicz W, Jones N. Dynamic progressive buckling of circular and square tubes. Int J
Impact Eng 1986;4:243–70.
[36] Gattesco N. Analytical modeling of nonlinear behavior of composite beams with
deformable connection. J Constr Steel Res 1999;52:195–218.
[37] Sayed-Ahmed EY. Numerical investigation into strengthening steel I-section beams using
CFRP strips. Struct. Congr. 2006 Struct. Eng. Public Saf., 2006, p. 1–8.
[38] Raynor DJ, Lehman DE, Stanton JF. Bond-slip response of reinforcing bars grouted in ducts.
Struct J 2002;99:568–76.
[39] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J
Struct Eng 1988;114:1804–26.

23
 Tables & Figures

Table 1. Details of impact simulation results for validation purposes.

Fm (kN) (mm) (mm)

Specimen ID M (kg) H (m)
Test Simulation Test Simulation Test Simulation
Deng et al. CFT-A1 525.0 3.0 1100.0 1170.0 93.0 107.0 69.0 80.0
(2011) CFT-A2 625.0 10.2 1718.0 1954.0 337.0 310.5 310.0 282.0
CFT-B-V1 592.0 1.3 268.4 293.7 87.0 80.7 79.2 75.4
Alam et al. CFT-B-V2 592.0 0.6 182.6 215.4 40.0 39.9 31.0 32.9
(2017) CCFT-L-V1 592.0 1.3 301.2 311.3 81.9 73.7 73.8 68.0
CCFT-H-V1 592.0 1.3 307.6 310.8 81.1 71.3 65.3 64.2

24
 Table 2. Overview of the CFST models with and without CFRP developed for the current study.

Drop
D×t fy fu Eh f'c fr tf L Lo
Model ID Height D/t
(mm×mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(m)
B 3.00 -- --
CFT-A1
B 6.00 -- --
L 6.00 0.52
HH
3.00
LL
219.0 × 3.7 59.2 340 438 46.4 1.04 3400 3150
HH
CFFT-A1 987
LL
3500
HHH
LHL 6.00 1.56
LLL
HH
LL
CFFT-B1 219.0 × 3.7 59.2 340 438 46.4 2280 1.04 3400 1880
HH
10.00
HL

25
 LL
LHLH
6.00 2.08
LLLL
CFT-C1 B -- --
H
0.52
L
HH
1.28
LL 1.04
LH 29.7
LHL
317 366 1.56
LLL
H 0.20
114.3 × 4.5
H 0.55
H 0.82 987
0.52
H 40
25.4 1000 1600 1300
CFFT-C1 H 50
H 60
LH 250 290
LH 340 390
LH 415 480
LH 1.28 500 575
LH 115.3 × 5.0
29.7 1.04
LH 116.3 × 5.5
LL
317 366 1500
LH
114.3 × 4.5
LH
2280
LL

Table 3. Details of mechanical properties of three CFRP products used in the current study.

Density (ρ) 1580 kg/m3 1580 kg/m3 1580 kg/m3

Longitudinal modulus (E1) 75 GPa 138 GPa 130 GPa
Transverse modulus (E2) 75 GPa 9.65 GPa 10 GPa
In-plane shear modulus (G21) 5 GPa 5.24 GPa 5 GPa
Out-of-plane shear modulus (G23) 5 GPa 2.24 GPa 5 GPa
Minor Poisson’s ratio (ν21) 0.10 0.021 0.10
Through thickness Poisson’s ratio (ν31) 0.10 0.021 0.10
Longitudinal tensile strength (XT) 987 MPa 2280 MPa 1500 MPa
Transverse tensile strength (YT) 900 MPa 57 MPa 50 MPa
In-plane shear strength (S) 90 MPa 71 MPa 70 MPa
Maximum strain for fiber tension (εt) 1.20% 1.38% 1.05%
Maximum strain for fiber compression (εc) 1.16% 1.175% 0.85%

26
27
 (a)
2400
FE simulation
2000 Deng et al. (2011)

Contact force (kN)

1600

1200

800

400

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (ms)
(b)

Figure 1. (a) Detailed FE model of the CFST beam from Deng et al. (2011); and (b) comparison of
impact force time histories obtained from the FE simulation and experimental test.

400
FE simulation
350
Alam et al. (2017)
Contact force (kN)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40
Time (ms)
(a)

28
 (b)

Figure 2. (a) Comparison of impact force time histories obtained from the FE simulation and
experimental test; (b) failure mode of the CFRP layer under impact.

50 Mid-span
Time (sec)
Displacement (mm)

Support
0.002

0.004
0
0.008

0.01
-50
0.02

-100
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
Location of section (mm)
(a)

29
 300 Support Mid-span Time (sec)
0.002
150 0.004

Shear (kN)
0.008
0 0.01
0.02
-150

-300
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
Location of section (mm)
(b)

100 Time (sec)

Support Mid-span
0.002
Moment (kN-m)

50
0.004

0 0.008
0.01
-50 0.02

-100

-150
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
Location of section (mm)
(c)

Figure 3. Structural response measures for CFFT-A1-HH under impact: (a) vertical displacement,
(b) shear, and (c) bending moment diagrams.

30
 (a)

(b)

Figure 4. von Mises stress distribution for CFFT-A1-HH in (a) CFRP, and (b) steel tube.

31
 240 240
CFT-A1-B
Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)
CFFT-A1-LL
180 180
CFFT-A1-HH

120 120

CFT-A1-B
60 60 CFFT-A1-L
CFFT-A1-LL
CFFT-A1-LLL
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (ms) Time (ms)
(a) (b)

Figure 5. Displacement response of CFST with and without CFRP under a drop height of
(a) 3.0 m, and (b) 6.0 m.

150 150
Moment at midspan (kN-m)
Moment at midspan (kN-m)

CFT-A1-B
CFFT-A1-HH
120 CFFT-A1-LL 120

90 90

60 60
CFT-A1-B
30 CFFT-A1-L
30
CFFT-A1-LL
CFFT-A1-LLL
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Rotation at midspan, 2θ (radians) Rotation at midspan, 2θ (radians)
(a) (b)

Figure 6. Absorbed energy of CFST with and without CFRP under a drop height of
(a) 3.0 m, and (b) 6.0 m.

32
 60 1
Bending moment

Absrobed energy ratio

Absorbed energy

Max moment (kN-m)

50 0.95

40 0.9

30 0.85

20 0.8

10 0.75

0 0.7
One Two Three
Number of layers
(a)

CCFT-C1-L Element erosion and

delamination

CCFT-C1-LLL

(b)

Figure 7. Effect of number of CFRP layers: (a) maximum moment and absorbed energy ratio, and
(b) comparison of von Mises stresses for the models with one and three layers of CFRP.

33
 60 1
Bending moment

Absorbed energy ratio

Absorbed energy

Max moment (kN-m)

50 0.95

40 0.9

30 0.85

20 0.8

10 0.75

0 0.7
HH LH LL
Fiber orientation
(a)

CFFT-C1-LL

CFFT-C1-HH

CFFT-C1-LH

(b)

Figure 8. Effect of fiber orientation: (a) maximum moment and absorbed energy ratio, and
(b) comparison of von Mises stresses for the models with CFRP oriented in the longitudinal, hoop,

34
and both directions.

60 1
Bending moment

Absrobed energy ratio

Absorbed energy

Max moment (kN-m)

50 0.95

40 0.9

30 0.85

20 0.8

10 0.75

0 0.7
75 130 138
CFRP modulus (GPa)
(a)

CFRP modulus 75 GPa

CFRP modulus 130 GPa

CFRP modulus 138 GPa

(b)
Figure 9. Effect of mechanical properties of CFRP: (a) maximum moment and absorbed energy

35
ratio, and (b) comparison of von Mises stresses for the three CFRP products examined in the
current study.

60 1
Bending moment

Absrobed energy ratio

Max moment (kN-m)
50 Absorbed energy 0.95

40 0.9

30 0.85

20 0.8

10 0.75

0 0.7
30 40 50 60
Unconfined compressive strength
(MPa)
Figure 10. Effect of unconfined compressive strength of concrete on the maximum moment and
absorbed energy ratio.

60 1 100
Bending moment
Absrobed energy ratio

Absorbed energy
Max moment (kN-m)

50 0.95
Displacement (mm)

80
40 0.9
60
30 0.85
40
20 0.8
t = 4.5 mm
10 0.75 20 t = 5.0 mm
t = 5.5 mm
0 0.7 0
4.5 5.0 5.5 0 10 20 30 40 50
Steel tube thickness (mm) Time (ms)
(a) (b)
60 1 100
Bending moment
Absrobed energy ratio
Max moment (kN-m)

50 Absorbed energy 0.95

Displacement (mm)

80
40 0.9
60
30 0.85
40
20 0.8 250 MPa
340 MPa
10 0.75 20 415 MPa
500 MPa
0 0.7 0
250 340 415 500 0 10 20 30 40 50
Yield stress (MPa) Time (ms)

36
 (c) (d)
Figure 11. Effect of steel tube thickness and yield stress: (a) and (c) maximum moment and
absorbed energy ratio, and (b) and (d) displacement time-history.

50 60 1
Moment at midspan (kN-m)

2 m/s Bending moment

Absrobed energy ratio

Max moment (kN-m)
3 m/s 50 Absorbed energy 0.95
40 4 m/s
5 m/s 40 0.9
30
30 0.85
20
20 0.8
10
10 0.75

0 0 0.7
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 2 3 4 5
Rotation at midspan, 2θ (radians) Impact velocity (m/s)

(a) (b)
100
2 m/s
3 m/s
Displacement (mm)

80 4 m/s
5 m/s

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (ms)

(c)

Figure 12. Effect of impact velocity: (a) moment-rotation relationship at the mid-span,
(b) maximum moment and absorbed energy ratio, and (c) displacement time-history.

37
 40
FE results

Absorbed energy (kJ)

Power equation
30
Ea = 1.14Ei0.88
R2=0.99
20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80
Initial impact energy (kJ)
Figure 13. Relationship between the absorbed energy and initial impact energy extracted from the
FE simulations.

Figure 14. Stress and strain distribution in the concrete, steel, and CFRP under a bending moment
(β represents the orientation of the CFRP layer).

38
 200 200
Moment at midspan (kN-m)

Moment at midspan (kN-m)

160 160

120 120

80 80 J
J
J
J
40 40

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Rotation at midspan, 2θ (radians) Rotation at midspan, 2θ (radians)

(a) (b)
50 50
Moment at midspan (kN-m)

Moment at midspan (kN-m)

40 40

30 30

20 J
J 20 J
J
10 10

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Rotation at midspan, 2θ (radians) Rotation at midspan, 2θ (radians)

(c) (d)

Figure 15. Relationship between moment and rotation obtained from the section analysis for
(a) CFFT-A1-L, (b) CFFT-A1-HH, (c) CFFT-C1-L, and (d) CFFT-C1-LL.

39