Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1080-1091
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, ISSN 1934-7359, USA
DAVID
PUBLISHING
1. Introduction
A composite column is a compression member
which may either be made up of a structural steel
sections encased by concrete or concrete filled in
hollow circular/rectangular steel tube. A few such
cross-sections are shown in Fig. 1. These compression
members are extensively used in the construction of tall
building under a specified time frame in the developing
countries over the last few decades. It has got a few
advantages over the conventional reinforced concrete
construction: (1) due to its higher strength and stiffness,
cross-sectional area reduces; (2) reduces material
consumption and project execution time; (3) inherent
ductility resulting in suitability for earthquake loading;
and (4) provides good fire resistance. As a result, it is
becoming increasingly popular in the construction
industry particularly in foreign countries, those having
Corresponding author: Amiya Kumar Samanta, M.Tech.,
Ph.D., research field: structural engineering. E-mail:
aksnitd@gmail.com.
RHS
Circular
2. Past Researches
Past works have been carried out both
experimentally as well as numerically to study the
ultimate strength of concrete encased steel composite
column. Furlong [1] and Lundberg and Galambos [2]
described AISC-LRFD and ACI Code method for
encased composite column design with example
calculation and highlighted some of the differences in
their design philosophies. LRFD procedure is easier to
apply because it employs specific formulas for strength
values compared to ACI method. Although ACI Code
procedure requires tedious computations, but it is
applicable to cross sections of any shape and it appears
to be unnecessarily conservative for slender composite
columns. The LRFD procedure offers the most
appropriate method for designing concentrically
loaded slender composite columns.
The study reported in Mirza [3] investigated the
effects of different variables on the variability of the
ultimate strength of steelconcrete composite
columns in which steel shapes are encased in concrete.
The ultimate strength of a number of typical composite
columns was studied in terms of the ratio of
theoretical strength based on an accurate description
of strength and probability distributions of variables
affecting the strength to a nominal strength based on
1081
1082
1083
f ch K
'
(2)
co
1084
3. Model Description
A 150 mm wide 200 mm deep and 1,250 mm long
model section has been proposed for calculation. The
details of the section are shown in Fig. 2. The structural
steel I-shape section is a fabricated one made up of
flange plate 50 mm 8 mm and web plate 84 mm 5
mm encased by concrete and additionally reinforced
with four longitudinal steel corner bars as well as
lateral ties. The said cross-section has been chosen with
a view that its axial capacity does not exceed 100 t. The
experimental set-up existing in the department is
limited to 100 t.
The grade of concrete mix, structural steel and
reinforcements are M25, Fe410 and Fe415,
respectively. The slenderness ratio is 8.34, which is a
short column. Four 10 mm diameters steel bars are
provided for longitudinal covering (1.047%) and 8 mm
1085
0.2 log
0.78
0.8f
(4)
(5)
Fig. 2
Structural steel
grade Fe410
Rebar
grade Fe415
Property
Overall section
Gross c/s area
Minimum M.I.
Notation
bdL
Ag (mm2)
Ig (mm4)
Ac (mm2)
Minimum M.I.
Comp. cube strength
Comp. cylinder strength
Modulus of elasticity
Area of structural steel
Minimum M.I.
Ratio of structural steel
Modulus of elasticity
Yield stress
Area of rebar
Minimum M.I.
Rebar ratio
Modulus of elasticity
Yield stress
Ic (mm4)
fck (MPa)
fc (MPa)
Ec (MPa)
Ass (mm2)
Iss (mm4)
ss (%)
Ess (MPa)
fys (MPa)
Ars (mm2)
Irs (mm4)
rs (%)
Ers (MPa)
fyr (MPa)
Magnitude
Remarks
150 200 1,250 L = 1,250
30,000
5.625 107
Unconfined concrete (Acu) = 19,908
28,466
Partially confined (Acp) = 6,057
Highly confined (Ach) = 2,501
5.544 107
25
fck = fcu
20
0.8
25,000
Ec = 5,000
1,220
Flange 50 8, Web 84 5
167,542
4.07
2 105
250
fu = 410
314
10-4nos.
638,136
1.05
2 105
360
fu = 415
1086
20 = 28.0 MPa
(8)
Hence,
= (250 1,220+ 360 314 + 20 19,908 +24
6,057 + 28 2,501)N = 1,032 kN
(9)
(10)
(14)
It may be noted that the Panalysis is dependent on
confinement factors, which is again dependent on
details, spacing of lateral ties and both Panalysis as well
as Psquash are factored/ultimate loads. Hence based on
the expressions, design axial working load may be
derived using a factor (= 1.5) as 902/1.5 = 601 kN.
4.2 Approach by Mirza and Lacroix [14]
Mirza and Lacroix [14] calculated strength of
composite columns in pure axial compression using
three international standards: (1) ACI318-02; (2)
AISC-LRFD; (3) Eurocode 4 and compared them with
(16)
(17)
It also specifies maximum axial load for pin ended
column (lower limit Pc) = 2EI/l2 with minimum EI =
(0.2 EcIg + EsIss) where modulus of elasticity of
concrete Eq. (18):
P0 = 0.85 902 = 767 kN
Ec= 57,000
Hence:
ksi = 4,733
Mpa = 31,167
(18)
(19)
Pc = 2.72 10 /1,250 N = 1,716 kN (20)
2
11
0.2
0.2
0
0.8
21,167
5.625
10
167,542
4.85 10
0.8 2 10 167,542 638,136
(21)
However, considering the lower EI design axial
capacity will be the lesser of Pn and Pc, i.e., 767 kN.
4.2.2 AISC-LRFD
It procedures uses axial capacity for pin ended
column Eqs. (22) and (23):
0.658
for
1.5
(22)
.
for
1.5
(23)
(24)
1087
(25)
/
0.7
0.6
(26)
+ 0.6 20
,
,
0.393
(29)
(30)
and for:
1.5
1,220
595
680 kN
0.877/
for
1.5
4.2.3 Eurocode 4
(49)
/ .
coefficient:
(31)
(32)
1/
0.5 1
0.2
imperfection factor
slenderness ratio:
(33)
0.85
767 kN
20
28,848 5.625
10 167,542
1.44
Pc =
28,848 MPa
10
167,542
63,8136
0.49 0.29
1/ 0.564
1.44
10
0.29
0.2
0.564
0.953
0.29
0.29
767
0.6
0.564
0.953
731 kN
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
33.83
20
,
,
250
(51)
45
1,220
28,466 /30,000
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
150
10 314
1.5
41,065 MPa
0.8
,
360
22.53 MPa
638,136
10 /1,250 N = 9,128 kN
7679,128
0.5 1
(35)
0.8
9,500
0.3
(34)
Pc =
0.8
(50)
/ .
0.275
21,667
(52)
0.8
(53)
(54)
for:
1.5,
22.53 0.658
30,000
0.85
21.83
655
557 kN
(56)
1088
3.5
30 ,
eccentricity ratio , slenderness ratio
reinforcement ratio
1% , structural steel ratio
4%, dimensionless reduction factor for structural
steel
= dimensionless reduction factor for
longitudinal rebar
= 0.8. With minimum
0.1,
1,250 150 8.33, the authors get Eq.
(59) and with with modulus of elasticity of concrete
Eqs. (60) and (61):
0.47
3.5
0.003
1
0.1
1 9.5 0.1
8.33 0.315
4,733
0.315
21,167
(59)
(60)
21,167 MPa
28,848 5.625
10
167,542
(61)
Considering the smaller one, the design capacity
becomes 767 kN.
0.8
10 167,542
386,808
1.08
10
(62)
(63)
(64)
(65)
0.44
0.877
0.44
0.1
(66)
0.3
(67)
(68)
(69)
(58)
0.003
0.5
0.1
2
10 167,542
21,167
5.625
3.128
10
250
0.85
638,136
3.128
/ 1,250
1,220
20
0.5
10
0.44
0.181
(71)
(72)
10
1,976
360
28,466
(70)
0.181
314
(73)
(74)
(75)
902 kN
902
397
0.658
745 kN
(79)
9,500
0.85
,
(81)
.
,
,
,
0.356
0.5 1
0.49 0.356
0.2
0.356
0.602
0.356 .
250
360
1,220
314
1.1
1.15
698 kN
28,846 0.85 .
0.602
(80)
28,848 MPa
(82)
0.602 (83)
0.92 (84)
(85)
1089
698
(86)
642 kN
(94)
Buckling load of a column under pure axial
compression:
(95)
103 MPa
10 167,542
10
5.54
/ =
1,220
10 = 9.83
9.83
250
1.15
250
28,466
0.8
10
11
(96)
19.23
(97)
28,466
314
1,220
638,136
0.85
= 701 kN
20
314
(101)
Assuming imperfection factor for buckling about
minor axis is Eqs. (102) and (103), reduction factor is
Eq. (104), axial capacity is Eq. (105):
y = 0.34
(102)
= 0.5
1 0.34
0.385 0.2
0.385 = 0.605 (103)
=
20
1.5
0.605
= 919621 = 0.385
0.605
0.385
0.932
(107)
and
stand for cross sectional area of
where, ,
steel section, the concrete and reinforcing steel
,
and
are the yield
respectively;
strength of the steel section, the characteristic
compressive strength(cylinder) of the concrete and
yield strength of reinforcing steel respectively; (fck)cu is
the characteristic compressive strength (cube) of the
concrete;
is the strength co-efficient for concrete
and is equal to 0.85 for fully or partially restrained
concrete encased steel section. For fully encased
section, local buckling of steel section check is not
required provided cover to the flange is neither less
than 40 mm nor one sixed of the least lateral dimension.
The buckling resistance of a column is derived from
non-dimensionalised column buckling curve (which
also takes care of both residual stress and geometric
.
imperfection) as
, where the reduction factor
( ) is derived on the basis of non-dimensionalised
slenderness ratio:
.
415 = 919 kN
(100)
(105)
(99)
= 0.932 (104)
701 = 653 kN
(108)
1090
(109)
0.8
Ecm/c*
where, Ecd =
(The factor 0.8 is an empirical
multiplier). This method also uses IS 800-2007 for the
estimation of axial capacity of composite column.
Using the properties of materials as in Table 1, the
authors have Eq. (110), The elastic critical buckling
load Pcr (Eq. (110)):
= 2.0
10
2.0
10
10
167,542
3.078
5.544
.
11
638,136 = 3.078
/ =
0.8
10 N-mm
10 /1,250
(111)
10 N
=1.944
(110)
0.85
1,220
314
= 873,810 1.944
= 686 kN (112)
10
= 0.67 (113)
0.2
0.2
0.670
= 0.5
= 0.8396
0.49
(114)
Reduction factor:
0.8396
0.8396
0.670
= 0.743 (115)
Comparison of Paxial.
6
7
Notation
Remarks
Magnitude (kN)
1,032
902
767
680
729
2.02
1.77
1.50
1.33
1.43
557
1.09
767
745
642
653
510
1.50
1.46
1.26
1.28
1.00
Factored capacity
Unfactored capacity
New method based on ACI &
AISC-LRFD
Using modified EI value
6. Conclusions
This paper presents a review on methods of design
based on approaches given in the current version of
Eurocode, ACI Code and AISC-LRFD and their
assessment for concrete encased composite column
under subjected to only axial load. It includes
comparison of various design process/parameters and
evaluation of design strength based on the procedures
predicted in the various codes of practices. A practical
I-section has been assumed and calculation has been
shown using the methods discussed to evaluate their
potentiality in understanding and predicting the
strength of fully encased composite column section. It
has been found that the evaluated strength varies
widely and their acceptability in Indian context is also
difficult. As per the INSDAG procedure, which is
again based on the foreign code EC4, seems to derive
the axial capacity of composite column much oan
conservative side. Also the limits in slenderness ratio
for which axial capacities are derived varying widely.
Hence there is a need for analytical as well as
experimental verification of similar models including
various parametric studies so that a rational and
practical approach may be adopted in Indian codes of
practice.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
1091