Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Behavior of circular reinforced concrete columns strengthened with

corrugated steel sheets and high-performance concrete
Ahmed Hamoda a, Ramy I. Shahin b, Mizan Ahmed c, Aref A. Abadel d , Anne W.M. Ng e,
Qing Quan Liang f,*,1
a
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafrelsheikh, Egypt
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Higher Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kafrelsheikh, Egypt
c
Centre for Infrastructure Monitoring and Protection, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
d
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
e
Faculty of Science & Technology, Engineering, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia
f
College of Sport, Health, and Engineering, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, VIC 8001, Australia

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

Keywords: Reinforced concrete (RC) columns are frequently strengthened due to the damage caused by environmental
Composite columns exposure, changes in loading conditions, or seismic upgrading. This paper presents experimental and numerical
Corrugated steel sheets investigations into the behavior of circular RC columns strengthened using galvanized corrugated steel sheets
Finite element simulation. High-performance
(GCSS) filled with concrete under eccentric and concentric loads. The effects of the loading condition, the types
concrete
Reinforced concrete
of concrete used to fill the void, and the existence of additional longitudinal steel bars on structural behavior are
Strengthening examined. The types of concrete include normal concrete, engineered cementitious composite (ECC), ultra-high-
performance ECC (UHPECC), and high-strength grout (GR). Test results show that the proposed strengthening
technique significantly improves the performance of RC columns. The elastic stiffness and energy absorption of
the strengthened columns increase by about 98 %, and 123 %, respectively when compared to those of the
control column under concentric loading. Under eccentric loading, the ductility of columns with high-
performance concrete (HPC) is better than that of other columns. Moreover, the type of concrete has a
remarkable effect on structural behavior. The grout-filled GCSS columns have a higher axial load, ductility,
energy absorption, and elastic stiffness than columns constructed with other types of concrete. The finite element
(FE) model developed by using ABAQUS is shown to simulate well the experimentally measured responses of
concrete-filled composite columns.

1. Introduction [7]. Fig. 1 illustrates existing strengthening methods for RC columns

[8–10]. These strengthening methods can enhance the load-carrying
Reinforced concrete (RC) columns in building and bridge structures capacity, inhibit the progression of reinforcement corrosion, and mini­
may deteriorate over time due to environmental exposure, changes in mize deformations within acceptable limits [11–13].
loading conditions, aging, or damage from accidental events [1–4]. The concrete jacketing method has been extensively studied and
Typical damages to RC columns include small cracks without rein­ shown to be effective in strengthening and repairing damaged RC col­
forcement failure, superficial concrete damage, and main reinforcement umns. It was reported that significant increases in the axial load-carrying
buckling and tie rupture [2,5,6]. The deterioration reduces the strength capacity, flexural strength, and ductility of RC columns could be ob­
and stiffness of RC columns, which may require strengthening or ret­ tained by concrete jacketing [5,14,15]. FRP materials offer an efficient
rofitting to extend their service life. Various methods have been pro­ alternative for retrofitting and strengthening existing concrete columns.
posed for strengthening RC columns, including concrete or steel Unlike externally bonded steel plates, FRP provides considerable
jacketing, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping, and steel bracing confinement to the concrete, which enhances the ductility of concrete

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (Q.Q. Liang).
1
https://orcid.org/0000–0003-0333–2265

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.107938
Received 24 June 2024; Received in revised form 16 November 2024; Accepted 26 November 2024
Available online 1 December 2024
2352-0124/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Structural Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Fig. 1. Strengthening methods of RC columns: (a) strengthening using partial stainless steel sheets [9], (b) strengthening using wrapping of FRP sheets [8], (c)
strengthening using pre-stressed hoops [10], and (d) strengthening using fully-covered corrugated steel sheets proposed in this study.

columns [3,16]. In addition, studies demonstrated that

Table 1
ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) jackets
Details of test specimens.
significantly enhance both the axial and flexural capacities of RC col­
umns compared to traditional RC concrete jackets [15,17,18]. However, Group Column`s Loading Additional Concrete type used
label case longitudinal for strengthening
the higher cost and poor fire performance of fiber-reinforced concrete
bars
(FRC) hinder their wider application in strengthening RC columns.
G1 C0 Concentric ———— ————
The strengthening method using concrete jacketing requires addi­
NC-C Concentric ———— NC
tional formwork, thereby increasing the material and labor costs. In ECC-C Concentric ———— ECC
addition, the durability of columns strengthened with concrete jacketing UHPC-C Concentric ———— UHPECC
may decrease due to the corrosion of reinforcement in harsh environ­ Gr-B-C Concentric 7#8 inside Gr
ment. On the contrary, GCSS offers advantages over concrete jacketing, grooves
G2 C0 Concentric ———— ————
including lightweight, excellent corrosion resistance, large energy
NC-E Eccentric ———— NC
dissipation, and high stiffness-to-weight ratio [19,20]. The space be­ ECC-E Eccentric ———— ECC
tween the corrugated steel tube and the concrete column can be filled UHPC-E Eccentric ———— UHPECC
with concrete, grout, or advanced cementitious composites to form the Gr-B-E Eccentric 7#8 inside Gr
so-called concrete filled GCSS (CFGCSS) column. The corrugated steel grooves

tube provides confinement to the core concrete in a CFGCSS column

under compression, which increases the strength and ductility of the
column. Moreover, ECC and UHPECC have higher ductility and dura­
bility than normal concrete (NC) so that they have been used to
strengthen RC members [17,21–24]. The utilization of ECC and UHPECC
in CFGCSS columns can further improve the strength, ductility, and
durability of the columns compared to that of NC. However, GCSS is
susceptible to local buckling, which reduces the ultimate strength of
CFGCSS columns. Thus, it is important to investigate the structural
performance of CFGCSS columns with local buckling effects.
While strengthening RC columns with NC and FRP jacketing methods
has been extensively studied, research on strengthening using corru­
gated steel sheets is limited. The study presented by Fang et al. [25]
focused on the behavior of concentrically loaded CFGCSS columns
embedded with structural steel sections, where the corrugated steel tube
had transverse corrugation. They conducted experiments and nonlinear
finite element analysis on CFGCSS columns to investigate the local sta­
bility and post-peak behavior of the steel column. It was observed that
the steel column in a CFGCSS column had higher local buckling strength
and ductility than the bare one due to the restraint provided by the
confined concrete. Chou et al. [26] used glass fiber-reinforced polymer
(GFRP) wrapped corrugated tube to enhance the seismic behavior of RC
columns. The incorporation of the corrugated tube facilitated the
development of a ribbed interface between the concrete and FRP. Their
results indicated that increasing the number of GFRP layers reduced the
deflection of strengthened RC columns. Furthermore, the failure mech­
anism changed from shear to flexure as the GFRP wraps were
augmented. Wang et al. [27] tested short CFGCSS columns loaded
concentrically. It was found that CFGCSS columns exhibited slightly Fig. 2. Specimens descriptions; (a) Reinforcement details of RC section; (b)
better axial performance than concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) col­ GCSS used for strengthening, (c) the cross-section of NC (d) Columns
umns. Zou et al. [28] also found that concentrically loaded CFGCSS strengthened with GCSS filled with NC, ECC, and UHPC; (e) Columns
columns had higher strength and ductility than the CFST columns. strengthened with GCSS filled with grout reinforced with steel bars. (units
Although limited studies on CFGCSS columns with transverse in mm).

2
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Table 2
Concrete mix proportions and measured compressive strength.
Concrete Cement Sand Coarse aggregate Fly ash Silica fume HRWR Water/binder PVA Fiber
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) ratio (% volume)

NC 350 700 1150 - - - 0.43 -

ECC 550 440 - 660 - 14.5 0.25 2.2
UHPC 800 500 - 750 150 40 (superplasticizer) 0.55 2.0

Note: HRWR: high range water reducer, PVA: Polyvinyl alcohol; Cement grade 52.50 N/mm2

core RC section of strengthened columns. The diameter of the RC section

Table 3
was 100 mm and made of NC reinforced with four longitudinal bars of
Mechanical properties of NC, ECC, and UHPECC.
10 mm diameter and 8-mm stirrups at 200 mm spacing. After the jack­
Concrete Compression Tension eting with GCSS, the final diameter of the strengthened columns was
fc` Strain Maximum ft Strain Maximum 120 mm. The space between GCSS and the RC section was filled with
(MPa) at fc` strain (MPa) at fc` strain either NC, ECC, UHPECC, or GR. For the grout-filled samples, additional
NC 32 0.002 0.03 2.76 0.0002 0.005 longitudinal reinforcements were provided in the grout region as shown
ECC 45 0.0031 0.005 5.92 0.022 0.038 in Table 1 and Fig. 2. In the naming of the columns, the first letter stands
UHPC 129 0.01 0.012 11.85 0.003 0.006 for the type of concrete used to fill the void (NC, ECC, UHPECC, GR), and
the last letter stands for the loading type (C refers to concentric loading
corrugation have been reported, no research has been undertaken on the and E stands for eccentric loading).
behavior of CFGCSS columns with longitudinal corrugation and filled
with HPC. Moreover, the structural performance of CFGCSS columns
2.2. Material properties
incorporating HSC, such as GR, ECC, and UHPECC, has not been
investigated. To overcome these limitations, this paper describes
The NC used for the core columns was made with ordinary Portland
experimental and numerical studies on the behavior of CFGCSS columns
cement, natural sand as fine aggregate, and crushed limestone with a
with longitudinal corrugation for the first time. The effects of NC, GR,
maximum size of 10 mm as coarse aggregate. In addition to that, fly ash
ECC, and UHPECC are examined on the responses of CFGCSS columns
and Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fiber were used in ECC and ultra-high-
subjected to concentric and eccentric loads. A finite element model of
performance concrete (UHPC). The water/cement ratio for ECC and
CFGCSS columns is presented and validated by experiments, providing
UHPC concrete was reduced by adding a high-range water reducer (see
researchers and engineers with modeling procedures for further
Table 2). The manufacturer reports PVA fibers to be 8 mm in length with
research and practical applications.
a density of 1.3 g/cm³ and a diameter of 35 µm. Their elastic modulus
ranged from 30 to 40 GPa, and their tensile strength fell within the range
2. Experimental program
of 1000 to 1600 MPa. Additionally, the fibers exhibited an average
elongation of 7 %. Three concrete cylindrical samples of 150 × 300 mm
2.1. Specimens’ details
were tested to estimate the compressive strength of the concrete. The
mechanical properties of NC, ECC, and UHPECC are illustrated in
A total of nine specimens as listed in Table 1 were constructed. The
Table 3. Sikagrout-200 was employed as a filling material in samples
control column (C0), which was not strengthened and was subjected to
GR-B-C and GR-B-E. As per the manufacturer [29], the compressive
concentric loading, was used to benchmark the results of the strength­
strength of Sikagrout-200 ranges between 45–50 MPa as per EN196–1
ened columns. The column specimens are divided into two groups. Each
Din 1164/7 specifications. Tensile stress-strain behavior was obtained
group consists of four specimens. Specimens in G1 were subjected to
by conducting uniaxial tension tests as shown in Fig. 3. The results of
concentric axial loading and specimens in G2 were under eccentric
tensile testing on steel bars given in Table 4 indicate a yield stress of
loading with an eccentricity of 17 mm from the center. The eccentricity
291 MPa and an ultimate tensile stress of 439 MPa for a bar with a
was chosen based on the preliminary numerical analysis to ensure there
diameter of 8 mm. Similarly, a bar with a diameter of 10 mm exhibits a
are no tensile effects on the base of the columns. The length of all
yield stress of 326 MPa and an ultimate tensile stress of 506 MPa. The
specimens was 700 mm. The cross-section and the reinforcement details
galvanized steel sheet had 235 MPa yield strength and 357 MPa tensile
of the control specimen as shown in Fig. 2 were the same as those of the
strength according to the tensile test.

Fig. 3. Direct tensile tests; (a) NC, (b) ECC, (c) UHPC, (d) GCSS, and (e) steel bars.

3
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Table 4
Mechanical properties of reinforcement bars and GCSS.
Steel element objective yield stage ultimate stage E (GPa) Poisson`s Ratio

σy (MPa) εy (%) σu (MPa) εu (%)

8 mm stirrups 291 0.1472 439 13.2125 198 0.3
10 mm Longitudinal 326 0.1678 506 11.3248 194 0.3
GCSS Strengthening 235 0.126 357 13.54 186 0.3

σ: Stress; ε: Strain; E: Modulus of elasticity.

Fig. 4. Preparation of the specimens: (a) RC section before casting (b) roughening the outer surface and applying chemical epoxy on the outer surface to bond GCSS
(c) embedding 12 mm anchorage bolts using chemical epoxy (d) filling the void between GCSS and core column; (e) strengthening the void with reinforcement bars
filled with grout; (f) leveling the top surface of the sample.

grout. For the grout-filled specimens, 12-mm diameter bolts were

embedded to enhance the connection of the GCSS to the core using
chemical epoxy. Additionally, 7 longitudinal bars of 8-mm diameter
were placed in the grout region. Finally, the top surface of the jacketed
column was leveled to provide a uniform bearing surface for testing.
Fig. 5 shows the columns which are ready for testing.

2.4. Test setup and instrumentation

The tests were undertaken in the structural concrete laboratory at

Fig. 5. Column specimens. Kafrelsheikh University, Egypt. A hydraulic compression testing ma­
chine with 2500 kN capacity was used to test the column specimens. To
2.3. Specimen preparation guarantee consistent load distribution and reliable data collection, each
specimen had steel caps securely fastened to both ends through gypsum
The specimen preparation process for strengthened columns (see Figs. 6 and 7). The axial deformation of the top end of the column
involved several key steps as shown in Fig. 4. The RC column was pre­ was free and its lateral movement was assumed to be restrained by the
pared by placing the longitudinal rebars and tying the stirrups before load cell. The bottom end of the cap was bolted to the steel base through
casting the normal concrete. After curing, the outer surface of the RC 4 threaded bolts. The hinged top end allows for rotation, simulating the
column was roughened to improve the bonding surface. A chemical connection to a beam or slab, while the restrained bottom end represents
epoxy was then applied to enhance the bond between the core and the the columns connection to the foundation. Therefore, the testing pro­
GCSS. The GCSS jacket was then secured around the core columns, cedure captures the behaviour of an eccentrically loaded column in a
leaving a void space that was filled with either NC, ECC, UHPECC, or typical building frame. The load was applied to the top end of the

4
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Fig. 6. Test set-up for column under concentric loading.

Fig. 7. Test set-up for column under eccentric loading.

column in vertical direction. Columns in Group G1 were under 3. Test results and discussions
concentric loading, while those in Group G2 were loaded eccentrically to
failure. The eccentricity of the loading was 17 mm. Linear variable 3.1. Cracking and failure modes
displacement transducers (LVDTs) were used to record the vertical dis­
placements and mid-heigh lateral displacements of the column (see The failure mode of the non-strengthened control specimen C0 was
Figs. 6 and 7). Additionally, two pi-gauges were installed at the characterized by a brittle compression failure involving concrete
midpoint to quantify the strains as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. A data logger crushing and buckling of the internal reinforcement. As the axial load
system was used for acquisition purposes. The testing was terminated gradually increased, the first vertical cracks became visible on the sur­
when the axial load of the columns loaded concentrically dropped to face at a load level of 179.87 kN. These cracks progressively widened
about 95 % of the ultimate load (0.95Pu) whereas for the eccentrically with further load increments. Eventually, the concrete cover spalled off,
loaded columns, the testing was terminated when the lateral deflection and the core experienced severe crushing. At this stage, the longitudinal
reached close to 25 mm or significant buckling of the corrugated steel rebars lost stability and underwent localized buckling distortion within
sheet was observed. the damaged region, as evidenced in Fig. 8. The buckling of the rebars
also led to the fracturing of the transverse ties in the affected zone. With

5
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

of steel due to the buckling (see Fig. 9). It was observed in Fig. 9 that the
extent of rupture in GR-B-C observed at the final failure mode was
smaller compared to other specimens. It should be noted that the
strength of the filled grout for GR-B-C was lesser than UHPC-C; however,
the yield and ultimate strength of GR-B-C were higher than UHPC-C.
This can be attributed to the additional confinement provided by the
steel bars embedded in the grout region.
Under eccentric loading, all columns in Group G2 exhibited lateral
deflections and curvature due to the applied bending moments in
addition to the axial compression, as shown in Fig. 10. A noteworthy
observation was that the rupture and localized buckling of the GCSS
primarily occurred in the maximum compression regions of the col­
umns. As the columns deflected laterally, the extreme compression fi­
bers experienced severe crushing and spalling of the concrete, leading to
high compressive stresses and deformations in the GCSS at those loca­
tions. The columns exhibited pronounced strain-hardening characteris­
tics and more favorable post-peak behavior. This heightened
performance can be attributed to the critical role played by the GCSS in
the tension region of the eccentrically loaded columns. Under eccentric
loading, the columns experience a combination of axial compression and
bending moments, resulting in a non-uniform stress distribution over the
cross-section. The tension side of the column is particularly vulnerable
to cracking, as concrete has relatively low tensile strength. In conven­
tional reinforced concrete columns, these tension cracks can propagate
rapidly, leading to a brittle failure mode. However, in the strengthened
G2 columns, the GCSS jacket provides continuous confinement and acts
as an effective tension membrane in the cracked region. As tensile cracks
initiate in the concrete at relatively low-stress levels, the GCSS engages
and resists the propagation of these cracks, allowing the column to
sustain higher loads and deformations. It was noted that as the strength
of the fill material increased, from NC to ECC, UHPC, and grout; the
Fig. 8. Failure mode of control column C0. extent of rupture and buckling in the compression zones of the GCSS also
increased. This behavior can be attributed to the fact that stronger fill
the concrete core significantly deteriorated and the reinforcing bars materials enabled the columns to sustain higher overall load magnitudes
buckled, the column experienced a rapid loss of load-carrying capacity. before failure. Consequently, the compression zones experienced larger
The axial load could no longer be sustained, leading to a sudden failure compressive strains on the GCSS, making them undergo severe localized
characterized by complete concrete crushing and reinforcement buck­ rupture and buckling deformations.
ling. The ultimate load recorded for the control specimen C0 was
256.96 kN, as summarized in Table 5. 3.2. Load–displacement relationships
Similar to the control specimen C0, the other strengthened columns
in Group G1 also exhibited a compression failure mode under concentric The experimental load-vertical displacement curves of columns
axial loading. The local buckling and rupture of the corrugated sheets subjected to concentric loading are given in Fig. 11(a). As shown, the
were the common failure modes observed for all strengthened specimens control column (C0) exhibited a nearly linear response until reaching its
associated with concrete crushed and in these locations, as shown in peak load, followed by a sudden and brittle failure. All strengthened
Fig. 9. However, the strengthening systems provided enhanced capac­ columns displayed increased stiffness and load capacity compared to C0
ities compared to the non-strengthened case. Unlike C0, the confinement but GR-B-C exhibited the most enhancement in stiffness and strength
provided by the GCSS jacket and the composite action with the fill enhancement. From the deflection at yield and ultimate strength re­
materials allowed the columns to attain higher ultimate load capacities ported in Table 5, it is observed that UHPC-C obtained a greater
before failure, as summarized in Table 5. For UHPC-C, there was a split deflection than any columns. This may be attributed to the higher

Table 5
Summary of the test results.
Group Specimen`s Yield Stage Ultimate Stage Elastic stiffness Energy
ID K absorption
Py Py/PyC0 Δpy Pu Pu/PuC0 Δu
(kN/mm) Ea
(kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kNmm2)

G1 C0 179.87 1.00 0.56 256.96 1 0.83 363.86 206.20

NC-C 248.06 1.38 0.60 314.00 1.22 0.93 664.11 268.71
ECC-C 280.67 1.56 0.71 334.13 1.30 0.96 702.51 295.02
UHPC-C 341.34 1.90 0.94 379.27 1.48 1.26 720.56 414.69
Gr-B-C 394.64 2.19 0.96 419.83 1.63 1.14 720 460.51
G2 C0 179.87 1.00 0.56 256.96 1 0.83 363.86 206.20
NC-E 172.65 0.96 2.01 221.34 0.86 5.13 50.40 2434
ECC-E 205.03 1.14 2.48 250.04 0.97 5.29 80.26 2627
UHPC-E 271.13 1.51 3.99 304.64 1.19 7.49 135.35 3372
Gr-B-E 359.04 2.00 9.13 366.37 1.43 12.93 299.84 6053

Note: Py =Yield load; Pu=Ultimate load; Δpy=Displacement at Py; Δu=Displacement at Pu.

6
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Fig. 9. Deformation of the columns of the group G1; (a) NC-C; (b) UHPC-C; (c) ECC-C; (d) Gr-B-C.

compressive and tensile strength of UHPC. When compared to the complete rupture of the GCSS jacket is evident, exposing the crushed and
deflection of C0 at the ultimate strength; the deflection was 37 %, 58 %, disintegrated concrete core underneath. This stage marks the failure
16 %, and 12 % higher for GR-B-C, UHPC-C, ECC-C, and NC-C, point where the column lost its load-carrying capacity due to the
respectively. buckling of the steel jacket and the disintegration of the concrete core
The load-lateral displacement curves for columns in G2 that were and fill materials.
loaded eccentrically are shown in Fig. 11(b). The columns exhibited The image sequence in Fig. 13(a) illustrates the progressive failure
excellent deformation capability upon reaching the peak load. However, behavior of the GR-B-E specimen, which was a reinforced concrete
among all the columns, UHPC-C exhibited poor ductility which can be column strengthened with a GCSS jacket filled with grout material and
due to the brittle behavior of UHPC. From Table 5, it is observed that the additional longitudinal reinforcement, under eccentric loading condi­
deflection for GR-B-C, UHPC-C, and ECC-C at the ultimate strength was tions. These observations can be correlated with the corresponding
152 %, 46 %, and 3 % higher than NC-C, respectively. GR-B-C exhibited stages marked on the load-displacement curve in Fig. 13 (b) for the
significantly better ductility than other columns. This can be due to the eccentrically loaded columns. Initially, the column appeared straight
fact that the presence of the additional longitudinal rebars embedded in with no visible damage, aligning with the initial linear-elastic region of
the grout fill played a crucial role in this enhanced response. the curve. As the eccentric load increased, vertical cracks began to form
Fig. 12(a) shows the progression of failure in the NC-C sample which on the surface of the steel jacket on the tension side of the column,
had a normal concrete core and fill material. The loading stage is also indicating the onset of internal cracking within the concrete core and
marked in the corresponding load-deflection curve illustrated in Fig. 12 grout fill. This cracking initiation coincides with the first nonlinearity in
(b). At stage St.–1, the column appears intact with no visible damage. As the load-displacement response at St.–1. With further loading, these
the loading progressed, vertical cracks started to appear on the surface of vertical cracks widened, and the column experienced lateral deflection
the GCSS jacket surrounding the concrete core at St.–2. With further due to the applied eccentric moment. However, the steel jacket did not
increases in the applied load at St.–3 and St.–4, these vertical cracks exhibit significant bulging or deformation on the compression side at
became more pronounced and wider, indicating internal cracking and this stage, likely due to the confinement provided by the grout fill and
damage propagation within the concrete core and fill region. At St.–5, additional reinforcement, as shown in St.–2. This phase corresponds to
significant bulging and outward deformation of the GCSS jacket can be the start of the hardening region of the curve, where the specimen
observed. This deformation pattern suggests that the concrete core continued to resist increasing loads while undergoing larger lateral de­
experienced severe internal cracking, crushing, and loss of confinement, formations. In the later stages, localized buckling of the steel jacket was
causing the steel jacket to buckle outwards. Ultimately, at St.–6, the observed in the maximum compression regions, suggesting the loss of

7
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Fig. 10. Deformation of the columns of the group G2; (a) NC-E; (b) ECC-E; (c) UHPC-E; (d) Gr-B-E.

Fig. 11. (a) Load-vertical displacement for test specimens in G1 and (b) load-lateral displacement for test specimens in G2.

confinement in those areas due to severe concrete damage and crushing. 3.3. Yield and ultimate load
However, in comparison with other samples shown in Fig. 10, the
buckling was contained, and there was no complete rupture or disinte­ Table 5 presents the yield and ultimate load of the tested columns.
gration of the steel jacket over the entire compression zone at St.–3. This The yield load of the columns was taken as the load when the outer steel
controlled failure behavior can be attributed to the grout fill and addi­ reached its yield strain. It can be seen that under both concentric and
tional reinforcement, which enhanced the deformation capacity and eccentric loads, the yield load and the ultimate load were higher for Gr-
prevented catastrophic failure. This stage aligns with the post-peak B-C followed by UHPC-C, ECC-C, and NC-C, respectively. The yield load
softening region of the load-displacement curve, where the specimen of Gr-B-C, UHPC-C, ECC-C, and NC-C was 119 %, 90 %, 56 %, and 38 %
gradually lost its load-carrying capacity without an abrupt loss of higher than C0, respectively. Similarly, the ultimate load was 63 %,
strength, exhibiting a more ductile response under the eccentric loading 48 %, 30 %, and 22 % higher for Gr-B-C, UHPC-C, ECC-C, and NC-C
condition at St.–4 to St.–6. when compared to C0, respectively. Under eccentric loading, the yield

8
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Fig. 12. Collapsing behavior of NC-C (a) Progression of failure and (b) Load-vertical displacement until failure.

load and the ultimate load of specimens UHPC-E, and Gr-B-E were ECC-E is 149 %, 39 %, and 8 % higher than NC-E, respectively. The
higher than C0 that were loaded concentrically. The ultimate load of Gr- better ductility of the columns with HPC resulted in better energy ab­
B-E and UHPC-E was 43 % and 19 % higher than C0, respectively. The sorption of the columns when compared to NC-E.
improved load in grout-filled GCSS columns can be attributed to the As mentioned earlier, this additional composite action resulted from
additional composite action of longitudinal reinforcement embedded in the longitudinal reinforcement bars in the jacket region for grout-filled
the void region. As the column was loaded, the longitudinal steel rein­ GCSS columns enabling columns to undergo larger deformations while
forcement engaged in a favorable composite action with the confining maintaining their load-carrying ability even beyond the peak load. The
grout material. additional reinforcement effectively delayed the onset of grout crushing
and jacket buckling by providing internal confinement within the
3.4. Elastic stiffness and energy absorption capacity strengthening grout region. This confinement enabled more gradual
post-peak softening, translating into improved ductility and energy
The elastic stiffnesses (E) of the columns under concentric and dissipation characteristics for Gr-B-C and GR-B-E.
eccentric loading presented in Table 5 were calculated as the slope of the
initial linear portion of the load-displacement curve, reflecting the 3.5. Ductility index and confinement effects
specimen’s resistance to elastic deformation under loading. As observed
in Fig. 14, the elastic stiffness of Gr-B-C, UHPC-C, ECC-C, and NC-C is The ductility of the columns can be evaluated using the ductility
98 %, 98 %, 93 % and 83 % higher when compared to C0. The higher index (δ) calculated as δ = Δu /Δpy , where Δu is the ultimate deflection
elastic stiffness value is due to the improved strength and stiffness of the taken as the deflection when the axial load drops to 85 % of the ultimate
columns due to the strengthening. Under eccentric loading, the elastic load (0.85Pu), and Δpy is the yield load. In this study, as only strength­
stiffness of Gr-B-C, UHPC-C, and ECC-C is 495 %, 169 %, and 59 % ened columns subjected to eccentric loading exhibited a drop of load up
higher than NC-E, respectively. Compared to NC, the high-performance to 0.85Pu, the ductility indices were calculated for these columns only.
and high-strength concrete infilled resulted in the improved elastic From Fig. 16, it can be seen that Column ECC-E has the highest ductility
stiffness of the columns. index compared to other columns followed by NC-E, UHPC-E, and Gr-B-
The energy absorption of the columns is computed as the area under E, respectively. Specimen NC-C is more ductile than UHPC-E and Gr-B-E.
the load-displacement curves. It is observed from Fig. 15 that the energy The ductility index of UHPC-E and Gr-B-E is 47 % and 56 % lower than
absorption of Gr-B-C, UHPC-C, ECC-C, and NC-C is 123 %, 101 %, 43 % that of NC-E, respectively. This is because high-strength concrete is
and 30 % higher when compared to C0. This is due to the improved brittle compared to NC and columns with high-strength concrete
ductility of the columns due to the strengthening compared to C0. The generally show poor ductility [30,31].
energy absorption of eccentrically loaded columns Gr-B-E, UHPC-E, and When investigating the effects of confinement on the core concrete,

9
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Fig. 13. Collapsing behavior of GR-B-E (a) Progression of failure and (b) Load versus later displacement until failure.

Fig. 14. Elastic stiffness of columns under (a) concentric loading and (b) eccentric loading.

the ratio fʹcc /fʹc was calculated for the specimens subjected to concentric in the confinement effect analysis (fʹcc /fʹc ). The fʹcc /fʹc of C0, NC-C, ECC-C,
loading by subtracting the load capacity of different components from UHPC-C, and Gr-B-C were calculated as 1.11, 1.14, 1.29, 1.33, and 1.15,
the ultimate load of the columns, where fʹcc is the compressive strength of respectively. The outer GCSS provides confinement to the core concrete
confined concrete and fʹc is the compressive strength of concrete cylin­ thus increasing the compressive strength of the core concrete.
ders. It should be noted that the core concrete area is the area of the
concrete confined by the stirrups. The cover concrete and the concrete in 4. Numerical simulation
the groove of the corrugated sheet are lightly confined and were ignored
A finite element (FE) model was developed using the commercial

10
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Fig. 15. Energy absorption capacity of columns under (a) concentric loading and (b) eccentric loading.

Fig. 16. Ductility index of columns under eccentric loading.

software Abaqus to simulate the response of CFGCSS column specimens

under concentric and eccentric loading conditions. The models incor­
porated the material modeling of the core RC section, longitudinal and
transverse reinforcements, GCSS jacket, and various fill materials in the
simulations. Appropriate material constitutive models and damage Fig. 17. FE modeling: (a) element Type, and (b) interface and bound­
ary conditions.
evolution laws were assigned to capture the nonlinear behavior of each
component. The test results were used to validate the accuracy of the
numerical simulations. corrugated steel jacket [33–35], while hard contact governed the normal
behavior. Embedded constraints tied the reinforcement and bolts to the
surrounding concrete, considering concrete as the host medium.
4.1. Modeling approach Surface-to-surface constraint tied the fill to the core concrete, as shown
in Fig. 17 (b). A mesh convergence study determined an element size of
The FE modeling utilized Abaqus Explicit with a quasi-static analysis 10 mm provided an optimal balance between accuracy and computa­
procedure, chosen for its robustness in handling complex contact in­ tional efficiency. As mentioned earlier, the vertical displacement and
teractions and convergence challenges associated with this problem rotation at the top end of the column was free and its lateral movement
[32]. The concrete core, jacket fill, and bolt materials were discretized was assumed to be restrained by the load cell. Therefore, in the FE
using 8-node hexahedral solid elements with reduced integration modeling, the lateral movement of the column top end was restrained
(C3D8R). The longitudinal reinforcing bars and transverse stirrups were (Ux = Uz = 0) while a 10 mm vertical displacement (Uy =− 10mm) was
modeled using 2-node linear 3D truss elements (T3D2). The corrugated applied at a reference point coupled to the top end of the column. On
steel jacket was represented by 4-node reduced integration shell ele­ contrary, the displacements of the bottom end were restrained by
ments (S4R). The element types are illustrated in Fig. 17(a). defining Ux = Uy = Uz = 0; however, the rotations were free. The
Surface-to-surface contact with a Coulomb friction coefficient of 0.25 boundary conditions and interface between elements are illustrated in
defined the tangential interaction between fill and galvanized Fig. 17 (b). The initial imperfection of L/400 was considered as

11
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Fig. 18. Stress-strain curves of (a) NC in compression, (b) NC in tension, (c) ECC and UHPC in compression, (d) ECC and UHPC in tension, (e) Steel.

recommended by previous studies [36,37]. the corresponding strain, respectively.

The stress-strain relationships of ECC and UHPECC proposed by Zhou
4.2. Material modeling and the confinement effect et al. [39] can be calculated using Eqs. (4–5).
⎧
⎪ E ε εc ≤ 0.4εcp
The Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model available in Abaqus is ⎪ 0 c
⎪
⎪
⎪
a continuum plasticity-based model that accounts for the inelastic ⎪
⎪
⎨
behavior of concrete. It incorporates key features such as tensile fc = (4)
⎪
cracking and compressive crushing, making it suitable for modeling ⎪
⎪ ( )
⎪
⎪ E ε
reinforced concrete structures. In the CDP model, the uniaxial tensile ⎪ E0 εc 1 − 0.308 0 c + 0.124
⎪
⎩ 0.4εcp < εc ≤ εcp
fcʹ
and compressive behaviors were defined according to the work done by
Carrier and Chu [38] for NC and grout; Zhou et al. [39] for ECC, and ⎧
⎪ ftc
UHPECC, as shown in Fig. 18 (a) to (d). The stress-strain relationships of ⎪
⎪
⎪ εt 0 ≤ εt ≤ εtc
⎪ εtc
NC recommended by Carrier and Chu [38] can be calculated using Eqs. ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
(1–3): ft = (5)
⎡ ( ) ⎤ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
β εεc0c
⎪
⎪
⎪ ftu − ftc
ʹ⎢
⎢ ⎥
⎥ ⎩ ftc +
⎪ (ε − εtc ) εtc ≤ εt ≤ εtu
fc = f c ⎢ ( )β ⎥ (1) εtu − εtc
⎣ ⎦
β − 1 + εεc0c
where, E0 and εcp represent the modulus of elasticity of ECC/UHPECC
⎧ [ and the strain at the ultimate stage, respectively; ftc and εtc denote the
⎪ ( )6 ] tensile strength and the corresponding strain of ECC/UHPECC at the first
⎪ εt εt
⎪
⎪
⎪ f tu 1.2 − 0.2 0 ≤ εt ≤ εt0 crack; ftu and εtu refer to the tensile strength and strain at the ultimate
⎪
⎪ εt0 εt0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ region, respectively.
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ Numerous comparative studies against experimental data have
ft = ⎡ ⎤ (2) validated the capability of the CDP model to reliably simulate the
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
εt nonlinear response of concrete under diverse loading scenarios [38,40,
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎢
ftu ⎢ (
εt0
)2
⎥
⎥ εt0 ≤ εt 41]. The recommended parameters of the CDP model are given as fol­
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎣ εt ⎦ lows: the dilation angle (Ψ) = 28◦ [42], flow potential eccentricity (e)
⎪
⎪
⎩ 1.25 ε − 1 −
εt
t0 εt0 = 0.1 [37], viscosity parameter (μ) = 0.0 [43,44], the ratio of tensile to
compressive meridian stress (KC ) = 0.66 [42,45], and the ratio of biaxial
( ʹ )
fc to uniaxial compression strength (fbo /fco ) = 1.16 [46]. It should be noted
β= + 1.55 (3)
32.4 that the confinement effects for the concrete was considered in this study
using the material laws given in Fig. 19 recommended by Tao et al. [47].
in which, fc and εc represent the stress and strain of the concrete mate­ Based on the previous study carried out by the authors [45], the model
rial, respectively; f′c and εco represent the peak compressive stress and

12
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

The corresponding strain at ultimate stress (εc0) was estimated by

using Eq. (11) given by De Nicolo et al. [49].
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( ) ̅
εc0 = 0.00076 + 0.626fʹc − 4.33 × 10− 7 (11)

The strain (εcc) can be evaluated by Eq. (12) suggested by Samani

and Attard [48].
( )0.3124+0.002fʹc
fB
εcc (2.9224− 0.00367fcʹ )∗
fcʹ
=e (12)
εc0

where the encircling stress (fB) can be described by Eq. (13) reported by
Tao et al. [47] as follows:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅
( ) − 0,02 2D2
0.25 1 + 0.027fy × e t
Fig. 19. Development of stress-strain relationship for confined concrete. fB = (13)
( )4.8
1 + 1.6e− 10 × fcʹ
proposed by Tao et al. [47] can reasonably predict the performance of
HPC including ECC. The confinement factor (ξ) was used to quantify the where D is the column diameter.
confinement calculated using Eq. (6). The descending part of the stress-strain was estimated by Eq. (14)
developed by Binici [50].
Aso fyo
ξ= (6) [ ( )B ]
Aco fcʹ ( ʹ ) ε − εcc
σ = fr + fc − fr exp − ε ≥ εcc (14)
0.005 + 0.0075ξ
where Aso and Aco are the actual cross-sectional area of the confinement
steel tube and concrete, respectively, while fy and fc` are the yield where fr = 0.1fcʹ , α = 0.005 + 0.0075ξ and β = 0.92 as reported by
strength of the corrugated sheet and concrete compressive strength, Tao et al. [47].
respectively. The linear ascending part of the curve shown in Fig. 19 (i.e. To model the constitutive behavior of steel components within the
0 <ε < εc0) can be modeled using Eq. (7) given by Samani and Attard finite element framework, experimental stress-strain data was idealized
[48]. into a multilinear curve. This simplified representation captured the key
σ A ∗ X + B ∗ X2 stages of the material response, including an initial linear-elastic region
= 0 < ε < εco (7) up to the yield point, followed by a strain-hardening phase, as shown in
fcʹ 1 + (A − 2) ∗ X + (B + 1) ∗ X2
Fig. 18(e). This idealization approach facilitated the implementation of
where, X, A, and B can be calculated using Eqs. (8–10): the steel material models while preserving the essential characteristics
observed from the experimental stress-strain curves.
ε
X= (8)
εco
5. Validation of the FE model
Ec εco
A= ʹ (9) The accuracy of the model is validated by comparing predictions
fc
with the test results. The failure patterns of the tested columns are given
in Figs. 20 and 21. It appears that the FE model predicts well the
(A − 1)2
B= − 1 (10) experimentally observed failure modes. For the columns under
0.55
concentric loading, the predicted local buckling pattern demonstrates a

Fig. 20. Observed and numerical failure mode of specimens: (a) NC-C; (b) UHPC-C; (c) GR-B-C.

13
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Fig. 21. Observed and numerical failure mode of specimens: (a) NC-E; (b) UHPC-E; (c) ECC-E; and (d) GR-B-E.

flattening followed by localized necking, indicating the initiation of attributed to the higher load-carrying capacity of GR-B-E, which sub­
cracks and subsequent loss of bond between the galvanized sheet and the jected the galvanized jacket to higher compressive stresses and de­
concrete at those locations, as shown in Fig. 20. This pattern aligns well formations before failure.
with the observed rupture zones in the tested specimens, with the extent The accuracy of the finite element models is also evaluated by
of rupture influenced by the fill material properties, as discussed pre­ comparing the yield and ultimate loads given in Table 6. The average
viously. The columns in G2 subjected to eccentric loading display global ratio of the predictions to the experimental values is very close to unity,
lateral deflection and local rupture of the corrugated galvanized sheet, at 1.02 and 1.00 for yield and ultimate loads, respectively. Additionally,
which occur in the regions subjected to maximum compression due to the low corresponding coefficients of variation, 0.04 and 0.03, further
the bending stresses (see Fig. 21). The GR-B-E columns, with additional demonstrate the high degree of consistency between the numerical
reinforcement in the grout fill, have more severe rupture in the top predictions and the physical test results.
compression zone compared to other G2 samples. This behavior can be Moreover, in Fig. 22, the predicted load-deflection responses of the

14
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

Table 6
Comparison between test and FE results.
Group Specimen Yield Stage Ultimate Stage

Py exp Py FE Pyexp/PyFE Pu exp Pu FE Puexp/PuFE

(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

G1 C0 179.87 182.25 0.99 256.96 250.31 1.03

NC-C 248.06 245.35 1.01 314.00 320.66 0.98
ECC-C 280.67 278.65 1.01 334.13 336.69 0.99
UHPC-C 341.34 330.14 1.03 379.27 372.49 1.02
Gr-B-C 394.64 357.18 1.10 419.83 418.61 1.00
G2 C0 179.87 182.25 0.99 256.96 250.31 1.03
NC-E 172.65 170.45 1.01 221.34 229.85 0.96
ECC-E 205.03 201.67 1.02 250.03 257.81 0.97
UHPC-E 271.13 269.25 1.01 304.64 311.31 0.98
Gr-B-E 359.04 335.18 1.07 366.37 354.80 1.03
Average ​ ​ ​ 1.02 ​ ​ 1.00
STD ​ ​ ​ 0.04 ​ ​ 0.03
COV ​ ​ ​ 0.04 ​ ​ 0.03

Fig. 22. Comparing numerical and experimental load-deflection curves; (a) Group G1; (b) Group G2.

Fig. 23. The effects of the thickness of GCSS on the ultimate strength of the columns subjected to (a) concentric loading and (b) eccentric loading.

tested columns are compared to the test curves. The load-displacement geometry and material properties of the analyzed columns with different
curves obtained from simulations are in excellent agreement with infill materials were the same as the ones tested in this study. The
experimental data. The FE model captures well the overall response thickness of the GCSS varied from 0.4 mm to 1.2 mm. Fig. 23 shows the
characteristics of the columns in the pre-peak and post-peak regions. effects of the thickness of the GCSS on the ultimate strength of the col­
umns. It is observed that increasing the thickness of GCSS increases the
6. Parametric study ultimate strength of the columns regardless of the types of infill con­
crete. The increase in the ultimate strength is found to be close to linear.
The validated FE model was utilized to perform a parametric study to However, the rate of increase in the ultimate load due to the increase in
examine the influence of the thickness of the GCSS on the ultimate the thickness of the GCSS, it is found to be highest for columns with NC
strength of the columns loaded concentrically and eccentrically. The followed by ECC, UHPECC, and grout filled with additional longitudinal

15
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

steel reinforcement, respectively. For example, increasing the thickness the work reported in this paper.
of the GCSS from 0.4 mm to 1.2 mm increases the ultimate load of the
NC-C column under concentric loading by 31 %; however, it increases Acknowledgment
that of the column under eccentric loading by 33 %. For columns filled
with UHPECC, the ultimate load of the column under concentric and The experimental work was carried out in the structural lab of
eccentric loads is increased by 14 %, and 12 %, respectively, when Kafrelsheikh University. The experimental work was funded by the first
increasing the thickness of the GCSS from 0.4 mm to 1.2 mm. author. The study was supported by King Saud University in Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia under project number RSP2024R343.
7. Conclusions
References
This paper has presented a comprehensive investigation into the
behavior of reinforced concrete columns strengthened with galvanized [1] Fukuyama K, Higashibata Y, Miyauchi Y. Studies on repair and strengthening
methods of damaged reinforced concrete columns. Cem Concr Compos 2000;22(1):
corrugated steel jacketing filled with various materials, including NC, 81–8.
GR, ECC, and UHPECC. Through a combined experimental and numer­ [2] Frangou M, Pilakoutas K, Dritsos S. Structural repair/strengthening of RC columns.
ical approach, the effectiveness of these strengthening systems was Constr Build Mater 1995;9(5):259–66.
[3] Sheikh SA. Performance of concrete structures retrofitted with fibre reinforced
evaluated under concentric axial and eccentric loading conditions. The polymers. Eng Struct 2002;24(7):869–79.
experimental program provided valuable insights into the failure modes, [4] Hadi MN, Algburi AH, Sheikh MN, Carrigan AT. Axial and flexural behaviour of
load-displacement responses, and performance enhancements achieved circular reinforced concrete columns strengthened with reactive powder concrete
jacket and fibre reinforced polymer wrapping. Constr Build Mater 2018;172:
through the proposed strengthening techniques. The key outcomes are 717–27.
listed below. [5] Campione G. Strength and ductility of RC columns strengthened with steel angles
and battens. Constr Build Mater 2012;35:800–7.
[6] Ahmed M, Shahin RI, Yehia SA, Emara M, Patel VI, Liang QQ. Nonlinear analysis of
• The results of this study highlight the potential benefits of utilizing
square steel-reinforced concrete-filled steel tubular short columns considering local
GCSS jacketing in conjunction with high-performance concrete ma­ buckling. Struct Concr 2024;25(1):69–84.
terials for strengthening RC columns. The GCSS provides continuous [7] Thermou G, Elnashai A. Seismic retrofit schemes for RC structures and local-global
confinement and acts as an effective tension membrane under consequences. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2006;8(1):1–15.
[8] Chen Y, Jiao Y, Chen H. Low-carbon repair of RC columns using sandwiched RAC
eccentric loading, while the fill materials contribute to compressive and FRP-steel composite tube: Axial compression tests and design. in Structures, 68.
resistance and overall composite action. Elsevier,; 2024.
• The control specimen exhibited brittle compression failure charac­ [9] Hamoda A, Shahin RI, Ahmed M, Abadel AA, Baktheer A, Yehia SA. Strengthening
of reinforced concrete columns incorporating different configurations of stainless-
terized by concrete crushing and reinforcement buckling. In contrast, steel plates. Structures 2024;64:106577.
the strengthened columns demonstrated improved load-carrying [10] Zhang D, Li N, Li Z-X, Xie L. Rapid repair of RC bridge columns with prestressed
capacities, enhanced ductility, and altered failure modes influ­ stainless-steel hoops and stainless-steel jackets. J Constr Steel Res 2021;177:
106441.
enced by the filled material properties. [11] BOUSIAS SN, FARDIS MN, SPATHIS A-L, BISKINIS D. Concrete or FRP jacketing of
• The elastic stiffness and energy absorption of the strengthened col­ concrete columns for seismic retrofitting. in Advances in Earthquake Engineering for
umns increased by as much as 98 %, and 123 %, respectively when Urban Risk Reduction. Springer,; 2006. p. 33–46.
[12] Triantafyllou GG, Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI. Corroded RC beams patch repaired
compared to the control column under axial loading. Under eccentric and strengthened in flexure with fiber-reinforced polymer laminates. Compos Part
loading, the rate of increase for columns with grout-filled was 495 % B: Eng 2017;112:125–36.
and 149 % when compared to NC-E. [13] Anagnostou E, Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI. Seismic retrofitting of damaged RC
columns with lap-spliced bars using FRP sheets. Compos Part B: Eng 2019;166:
• Test results show that the grout-filled GCSS columns exhibited the
598–612.
most improvement in the axial load, ductility, energy absorption, [14] Zaiter A, Lau T. Review on strengthening reinforced concrete columns using
and elastic stiffness compared to other strengthened columns. The reinforced concrete jackets. in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental
additional reinforcement improved composite action effectively Science, 614. IOP Publishing,; 2020, 012063.
[15] Shehab H, Eisa A, Wahba AM, Sabol P, Katunský D. Strengthening of reinforced
delayed the onset of grout crushing and jacket buckling, leading to concrete columns using ultra-high performance fiber-reinforced concrete jacket.
improved ductility and gradual post-peak softening. Buildings 2023;13(8):2036.
• The numerical simulations, conducted using the FE method in [16] Esfahani MR, Kianoush MR. Axial compressive strength of reinforced concrete
columns wrapped with fibre reinforced polymers (FRP). in Repair and Renovation
ABAQUS, exhibited excellent correlation with the experimental ob­ of Concrete Structures: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the
servations, accurately capturing the failure modes, load-deformation University of Dundee, Scotland, UK on 5–6 My 2005. Thomas Telford Publishing,;
curves, and the influence of loading conditions and strengthening 2005. p. 335–42.
[17] Dadvar SA, Mostofinejad D, Bahmani H. Strengthening of RC columns by ultra-high
configurations. The successful validation of the finite element model performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) jacketing. Constr Build Mater
lends confidence in its applicability for further parametric studies 2020;235:117485.
and design optimization of the strengthening system. [18] Helles ZH. Strengthening of square reinforced concrete columns with fibrous ultra
high performance self-compacting concrete jacketing. Gaza: The Islamic University
Gaza,; 2014.
CRediT authorship contribution statement [19] Biancolini M. Evaluation of equivalent stiffness properties of corrugated board.
Compos Struct 2005;69(3):322–8.
[20] Yokozeki T, Takeda S-i, Ogasawara T, Ishikawa T. Mechanical properties of
Ahmed Hamoda: Writing – original draft, Software, Project
corrugated composites for candidate materials of flexible wing structures. Compos
administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2006;37(10):1578–86.
Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Qing Quan Liang: [21] Elsayed M, Tayeh BA, Abou Elmaaty M, Aldahshoory Y. Behaviour of RC columns
strengthened with ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC)
Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Anne Ng: Writing – review &
under eccentric loading. J Build Eng 2022;47:103857.
editing, Visualization. Ramy Shahin: Writing – original draft, Visuali­ [22] Susilorini RMR, Kusumawardaningsih Y. Advanced study of columns confined by
zation, Validation, Investigation. Aref Abadel: Writing – review & ultra-high-performance concrete and ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced
editing, Project administration, Investigation. Mizan Ahmed: Writing – concrete confinements. Fibers 2023;11(5):44.
[23] Hamoda A, Ahmed M, Sennah K. Experimental and numerical investigations of the
review & editing, Visualization, Investigation. effectiveness of engineered cementitious composites and stainless steel plates in
shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams. Struct Concr 2023;24(2):
Declaration of Competing Interest 2778–99.
[24] Arulanandam PM, Kanakubo T, Singh S, Sivasubramanian MV. Effect of ECC layer
thickness and reinforcement ratio on the load carrying capacity of steel-reinforced
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial composite beams. Struct Concr 2023.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence

16
A. Hamoda et al. Structures 70 (2024) 107938

[25] Fang Y, Liu C, Yang H, Yang L. Axial behaviour of concrete-filled corrugated steel [37] Hamoda AA, Ahmed M, Abadel AA, Ghalla M, Patel VI, Liang QQ. Experimental
tubular column embedded with structural steel. J Constr Steel Res 2020;170: and numerical studies of circular precast concrete slender columns with
106064. intermediate connection filled with high-performance concrete. Structures 2023;
[26] Chou C-C, Lee C-S, Wu K-Y, Chin V-L. Development and validation of a FRP- 57:105204.
wrapped spiral corrugated tube for seismic performance of circular concrete [38] Carreira DJ, Chu K-H. Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in compression. J
columns. Constr Build Mater 2018;170:498–511. Proc 1985;82(6):797–804.
[27] Wang Y, Yang L, Yang H, Liu C. Behaviour of concrete-filled corrugated steel tubes [39] Zhou J, Pan J, Leung CK. Mechanical behavior of fiber-reinforced engineered
under axial compression. Eng Struct 2019;183:475–95. cementitious composites in uniaxial compression. J Mater Civ Eng 2015;27(1):
[28] Zou Y, Wang L, Sun Z, Pan J, Chen M, Wu Y. Experimental and numerical studies of 04014111.
concrete-filled corrugated steel tubular column under axial compression. Eng [40] Barros JA, Figueiras JA. Flexural behavior of SFRC: testing and modeling. J Mater
Struct 2023;276:114813. Civ Eng 1999;11(4):331–9.
[29] Sikagrout®-200, 02, 2015 ed., Sika Egypt for Construction Chemicals, Egypi, 2015. [41] Nataraja M, Dhang N, Gupta A. Stress–strain curves for steel-fiber reinforced
[Online]. Available: 〈https://egy.sika.com/dms/getdocument.get/69829980–8 concrete under compression. Cem Concr Compos 1999;21(5-6):383–90.
be7–3fc6-b4c8-c2cc41cc41a6/Sikagrout%C2%AE%20–200.pdf〉. [42] Hamoda A, Ahmed M, Ghalla M, Liang QQ, Abadel AA. Flexural performance of
[30] Ahmed M, Liang QQ, Patel VI, Hadi MNS. Numerical analysis of axially loaded precast circular reinforced concrete members with intermediate connection filled
circular high strength concrete-filled double steel tubular short columns. Thin- with ultra-high-performance-concrete. Case Studies in Construction Materials
Walled Struct 2019;138:105–16. 2023;19:e02386.
[31] Ahmed M, Yehia S, Shahin R, Emara M, Patel VI, Liang QQ. Numerical analysis of [43] Hamoda A, El-Mandouh MA, Ahmed M, Abadel AA, Liang QQ, Elsamak G.
circular steel–reinforced concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns. Mag Concr Res Experimental and numerical studies of reinforced concrete stair beams
2023;76(6):303–18. strengthened with steel bars and plates. Eng Struct 2023;297:117037.
[32] McIntosh A, Gatheeshgar P, Poologanathan K, Gunalan S, Navaratnam S, [44] Hamoda A, Hossain K. Numerical assessment of slab–column connection
Higgins C. Web crippling of cold-formed carbon steel, stainless steel, and additionally reinforced with steel and CFRP bars. Arab J Sci Eng 2019;44:
aluminium channels: Investigation and design. J Constr Steel Res 2021;179: 8181–204.
106538. [45] Hamoda A, Abdelazeem F, Emara M. Concentric compressive behavior of hybrid
[33] Ahmed M, Yehia SA, Shahin RI, Emara M, Patel VI, Liang QQ. Numerical concrete–stainless steel double-skin tubular columns incorporating high
simulation and design of circular steel-reinforced concrete-filled steel tubular. performance concretes. Thin-Walled Struct 2021;159:107297.
Short Columns axial Load, Mag Concr Res 2023:1–44. [46] Le TT, Patel VI, Liang QQ, Huynh P, Ha NS. Numerical analysis of square concrete-
[34] Ahmed M, Shahin RI, Yehia SA, Emara M, Patel VI, Liang QQ. Nonlinear analysis of filled double-skin tubular columns with outer stainless-steel tube. Struct Concr
square steel-reinforced concrete-filled steel tubular short columns considering local 2022;23(5):2968–85.
buckling. Struct Concr 2023. [47] Tao Z, Wang Z-B, Yu Q. Finite element modelling of concrete-filled steel stub
[35] Zheng Y, He C, Zheng L. Experimental and numerical investigation of circular columns under axial compression. J Constr Steel Res 2013;89:121–31.
double-tube concrete-filled stainless steel tubular columns under cyclic loading. [48] Samani AK, Attard MM. A stress–strain model for uniaxial and confined concrete
Thin-Walled Struct 2018;132:151–66. under compression. Eng Struct 2012;41:335–49.
[36] Hamoda A, Ahmed M, Abadel AA, Gohari S. Experimental and numerical [49] De Nicolo B, Pani L, Pozzo E. Strain of concrete at peak compressive stress for a
investigations of precast circular reinforced concrete slender columns with wide range of compressive strengths. Mater Struct 1994;27:206–10.
intermediate connection. Adv Struct Eng 2024. 13694332231222091. [50] Binici B. An analytical model for stress–strain behavior of confined concrete. Eng
Struct 2005;27(7):1040–51.

17