Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Suggested empirical models for the axial capacity of circular CFT stub columns
Zhao-Hui Lu a , Yan-Gang Zhao b,
a
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Central South University, 22 Shaoshannan Road, Changsha 410075, China
Department of Architecture, Kanagawa University, 3-27-1 Rokkakubashi, Kanagawa-ku, Yokohama 221-8686, Japan
article
info
Article history:
Received 4 August 2008
Accepted 24 December 2009
Keywords:
Composite columns
Concrete
Steel
Circular tubes
Design
Capacity
abstract
In this paper, a total of 250 experimental tests of axially loaded circular concrete-filled steel tube (CFT)
stub columns, published in the literature was summarized. The applicability of the current design codes
such as ACI, Australian Standards, AISC, AIJ, Eurocode 4, DL/T and some available empirical models
proposed by various researchers for calculating the axial capacity of circular CFT stub columns was
examined using these experimental data. Based on the investigations, four new empirical models for
predicting the axial capacity of circular CFT stub columns are proposed. The comparisons between
the experimental results and the predictions of these models show that the proposed empirical
models provide a direct, compact, and efficient representation of the ultimate strength of circular CFT
stub columns made with not only normal strength but also high strength steel tubes and concrete.
Finally, the limiting values of the maximum effective length, the compressive strength of concrete,
the yield strength of steel tubes and the diameter-to-thickness for circular CFT stub columns with
respect to the present empirical models are suggested. It is expected that engineers can easily use the
present empirical models to estimate the axial capacities of circular CFT stub columns for engineering
designs.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Concrete-filled steel tubular (CFT) columns are being more
widely used in the construction of high-rise buildings, bridges,
subway platforms, and barriers. Their usage provides excellent
static and earthquake-resistant properties, such as high strength,
high ductility, high stiffness, and large energy-absorption capacity.
CFT columns provide the benefits of both steel and concrete: a steel
tube surrounding a concrete column not only assists in carrying the
axial load but also confines the concrete. Furthermore, it eliminates
the permanent formwork, which reduces construction time, while
the concrete core takes the axial load and prevents or delays local
buckling of the steel tube.
With the advent of high-strength steel and the production
of high-strength concrete using conventional materials with
careful quality control, high-strength CFT columns are both
technically and economically feasible. However, they are scarcely
adopted in the construction industry, mainly due to the lack of
understanding of their structural behavior and reliable design
recommendations [1]. The present design codes, such as AIJ
[2,3], AISC [4], Eurocode 4 [5], and DL/T [6] have some limitations
in applications concerning the materials strength and the
diameter (width)-to-thickness ratio of circular (square) tubes. For
Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 45 481 5661x3483; fax: +81 45 481 5360.
E-mail address: zhao@kanagawa-u.ac.jp (Y.-G. Zhao).
0143-974X/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.12.014
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
851
Table 1
Limitations of applications of concerning the materials strength and diameter-to-thickness ratio of circular steel tubes in some available design rules for CFT columns.
AIJ [2,3]
AISC [4]
Eurocode 4 [5]
DL/T [6]
235 fy 355
fcyl,100 58.8
fy 525
21 fcyl,150 70
235 fy 390
30 fcu,150 80
1.5 (23500/F )
235 fy 460
20 fcyl,150 50 or
25 fcu,150 60
90 (235/fy )
20100
Fig. 1. Illustration of load applied to the entire section of circular CFT stub columns.
(1)
(2)
(3)
852
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
Table 2
Measured specimen dimensions, material properties and axial capacities (Circular CFT stub columns).
No. of
specimens
Name of
specimens
Dimensions
Material properties
L (mm)
L/D
33.1
33.1
29.7
29.5
29.5
48.1
49.7
31.0
31.1
44.9
45.6
44.9
203.3
203.3
241.3
241.4
241.4
304.8
304.9
304.9
304.9
152.3
152.3
152.4
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.99
1.99
1.99
34.1
31.2
34.4
34.1
29.6
25.9
20.9 (fcyl , 150)
42.0
43.4
25.0
40.9
25.9
605.1
605.1
451.6
451.6
451.6
415.1
415.1 (sy )
633.4
633.4
363.3
363.3
363.3
1112
1067
1200
1200
1112
1200
1200
2908
2913
355
434
372
5.07
7.00
7.61
8.44
10.21
11.60
8.30
8.93
9.64
13.25
31.4
90.0
82.8
74.6
61.7
54.3
86.7
91.8
105.8
77.0
447.0
1890.0
1890.0
1890.0
1890.0
1890.0
2160.0
2460.0
3060.0
3060.0
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
41.5
36.0
35.0
34.5
38.4 (fcyl , 150)
46.0
15.0
45.0
16.9
28.9
381.5
291.4
349.5
350.0
323.3 (sy )
347.2
312.0
331.0
336.0
368.7
2230
16650
18000
18600
20500
24400
15000
33600
30000
46000
D (mm)
t (mm)
101.7
101.7
120.8
120.8
120.8
152.6
152.6
152.6
152.6
76.4
76.5
76.4
3.07
3.07
4.06
4.09
4.09
3.18
3.07
4.93
4.90
1.70
1.68
1.70
159.0
630.0
630.0
630.0
630.0
630.0
720.0
820.0
1020.0
1020.0
D/t
Axial
capacity Ntest
(kN)
Concrete
compressive
strength (MPa)
Tested by
Yield strength
of steel tube
fy (MPa)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
3
4
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
19
22
23
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
SB1
SB2
SB3
SB4
SB5
SB6
SB7
SB8
SB9
SB10
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
S30CS50B
S20CS50A
S16CS50B
S12CS50A
S10CS50A
S30CS80A
S20CS80B
S16CS80A
S12CS80A
S30CS10A
S20CS10A
S12CS10A
165.0
190.0
190.0
190.0
190.0
165.0
190.0
190.0
190.0
165.0
190.0
190.0
2.82
1.94
1.52
1.13
0.86
2.82
1.94
1.52
1.13
2.82
1.94
1.13
58.5
97.9
125.0
168.1
220.9
58.5
97.9
125.0
168.1
58.5
97.9
168.1
580.5
663.5
664.5
664.5
659.0
580.5
663.5
663.5
662.5
577.5
660.0
660.0
3.52
3.49
3.50
3.50
3.47
3.52
3.49
3.49
3.49
3.50
3.47
3.47
48.3
41.0
48.3
41.0
41.0 (fcyl , 150)
80.2
74.7
80.2
80.2
108.0
108.0
108.0
363.3
256.4
306.1
185.7
210.7 (sy )
363.3
256.4
306.1
185.7
363.3
256.4
185.7
1662
1678
1695
1377
1350
2295
2592
2602
2295
2673
3360
3058
OShea and
Bridge [9]
(12 tests)
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
L-20-1
L-20-2
H-20-1
H-20-2
L-32-1
L-32-2
H-32-1
H-32-2
L-58-1
L-58-2
H-58-1
H-58-2
178.0
178.0
178.0
178.0
179.0
179.0
179.0
179.0
174.0
174.0
174.0
174.0
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
19.8
19.8
19.8
19.8
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
2.02
2.02
2.02
2.02
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.07
2.07
2.07
2.07
22.2
22.2
45.4
45.4
22.1 (fcyl , 100)
23.9
43.7
43.7
23.9
23.9
45.7
45.7
283.0
283.0
283.0
283.0
249.0 (sy )
249.0
249.0
249.0
266.0
266.0
266.0
266.0
2120
2060
2720
2730
1410
1560
2080
2070
1220
1220
1640
1710
Sakino and
Hayashi [17]
(12 tests)
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
C04LB
C06LB
C08LB
C12LB
C04MB
C06MB
C08MB
C12MB
C12MBH
C06HB
C08HB
C12HB
301.5
298.5
298.4
297.0
301.5
298.5
298.4
297.0
301.3
298.5
298.4
297.0
4.50
5.74
7.65
11.88
4.50
5.74
7.65
11.88
11.59
5.74
7.65
11.88
67.0
52.0
39.0
25.0
67.0
52.0
39.0
25.0
26.0
52.0
39.0
25.0
904.5
895.5
895.2
891.0
904.5
895.5
895.2
891.0
903.9
895.5
895.2
891.0
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
27.7
27.7
27.7
27.7
35.6 (fcyl , 100)
32.3
35.5
35.6
35.6
82.4
82.4
82.4
381.2
399.8
384.2
347.9
381.2 (sy )
399.8
384.2
347.9
471.4
399.8
384.2
347.9
3851
4537
4919
5909
4547
5125
5821
7222
8594
7938
8388
9388
Kato [18]
(12 tests)
Gardner and
Jacobson [15]
(12 tests)
Luksha and
Nesterovich [16]
(10 tests)
computed by
(4)
p
0,AISC
pe
(Pe 0.44P0,AISC )
(5)
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
853
Table 2 (continued)
No. of
specimens
Name of
specimens
Dimensions
Material properties
L/D
Concrete
compressive
strength (MPa)
Yield strength
of steel tube
fy (MPa)
33.9
33.9
34.0
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
59.1
59.1
59.1
34.0
34.0
34.3
50.2
50.2
50.2
59.1
59.1
59.1
59.1
34.3
34.0
34.0
50.2
50.2
59.1
59.1
59.1
304.8
304.8
304.8
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
304.8
304.8
304.8
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
304.8
304.8
304.8
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
117.0
117.0
135.6
117.0
117.0
135.6
135.6
135.6
135.6
135.6
135.6
62.4 (fcyl , 100)
62.4
62.4
57.3
57.3
57.3
62.4
70.8
70.8
70.8
25.4
27.7
29.4
25.4
27.7
27.7
27.7
27.7
377.3
377.3
377.3
341.0
341.0
341.0
341.0
341.0
462.6
462.6
462.6
377.3 (sy )
377.3
377.3
341.0
341.0
341.0
462.6
462.6
462.6
462.6
377.3
377.3
377.3
341.0
341.0
462.6
462.6
462.6
1117
1195
1185
2067
1960
2087
2048
2077
2175
2136
2165
921
921
901
1323
1391
1313
1558
1577
1577
1626
676
715
715
931
950
1098
1107
1078
3.02
3.07
3.05
6.66
10.34
3.04
3.03
6.63
10.35
3.04
3.05
6.65
10.38
33.6
33.2
33.4
32.5
30.8
33.5
33.4
32.6
30.8
33.5
33.3
32.5
30.7
304.2
305.7
305.4
649.2
954.9
305.1
303.9
649.2
954.9
305.7
304.5
649.2
955.5
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
23.2
23.2
23.2
24.3
24.2
40.2
40.2 (fcyl , 100)
38.2
39.2
51.3
51.3
46.8
52.2
371.0
371.0
371.0
452.0
331.0
371.0
371.0 (sy )
452.0
339.0
371.0
371.0
452.0
339.0
660
649
682
3568
6565
800
742
4023
7933
877
862
4214
8289
Yamamoto
et al. [19]
(13 tests)
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
6.47
6.47
6.47
50.4
50.3
50.3
50.5
101.5
101.4
101.4
101.5
152.0
152.0
152.0
152.0
26.9
26.8
26.8
26.8
52.5
52.5
52.4
52.4
79.4
79.4
79.3
79.4
16.7
16.8
16.7
447.0
447.0
447.0
447.0
903.0
900.0
900.0
903.0
1350.0
1350.0
1350.0
1350.0
366.0
366.0
366.0
366.0
717.0
714.0
714.0
714.0
1083.0
1083.0
1080.0
1080.0
324.0
327.0
324.0
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
25.4
40.5
40.5
77.0
25.4
41.1
41.1
80.3
25.4
41.1
41.1
85.1
25.4
40.5 (fcyl , 100)
40.5
77.0
25.4
40.5
40.5
77.0
25.4
41.1
41.1
85.1
25.4
40.5
40.5
308.0
308.0
308.0
308.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
576.0
576.0 (scy )
576.0
576.0
507.0
507.0
507.0
507.0
525.0
525.0
525.0
525.0
853.0
853.0
853.0
941
1064
1080
1781
2382
3277
3152
5540
4415
6870
6985
11665
1509
1657
1663
2100
3035
3583
3647
5578
5633
7260
7045
11505
2275
2446
2402
t (mm)
S-30.1
S-30.2
S-30.3
S-50.1
S-50.2
S-50.3
S-50.4
S-50.5
S-60.1
S-60.2
S-60.3
H-30.1
H-30.2
H-30.3
H-50.1
H-50.2
H-50.3
H-60.1
H-60.2
H-60.3
H-60.4
L-30.1
L-30.2
L-30.3
L-50.1
L-50.2
L-60.1
L-60.2
L-60.3
101.6
101.6
101.6
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
101.6
101.6
101.6
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
101.6
101.6
101.6
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
3.00
3.00
2.99
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.37
2.37
2.37
2.99
2.99
2.96
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.37
2.37
2.37
2.37
2.96
2.99
2.99
2.78
2.78
2.37
2.37
2.37
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
C10A-2A-1
C10A-2A-2
C10A-2A-3
C20A-2A
C30A-2A
C10A-3A-1
C10A-3A-2
C20A-3A
C30A-3A
C10A-4A-1
C10A-4A-2
C20A-4A
C30A-4A
101.4
101.9
101.8
216.4
318.3
101.7
101.3
216.4
318.3
101.9
101.5
216.4
318.5
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
CC4-A-2
CC4-A-4-1
CC4-A-4-2
CC4-A-8
CC4-C-2
CC4-C-4-1
CC4-C-4-2
CC4-C-8
CC4-D-2
CC4-D-4-1
CC4-D-4-2
CC4-D-8
CC6-A-2
CC6-A-4-1
CC6-A-4-2
CC6-A-8
CC6-C-2
CC6-C-4-1
CC6-C-4-2
CC6-C-8
CC6-D-2
CC6-D-4-1
CC6-D-4-2
CC6-D-8
CC8-A-2
CC8-A-4-1
CC8-A-4-2
149.0
149.0
149.0
149.0
301.0
300.0
300.0
301.0
450.0
450.0
450.0
450.0
122.0
122.0
122.0
122.0
239.0
238.0
238.0
238.0
361.0
361.0
360.0
360.0
108.0
109.0
108.0
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
Tested by
L (mm)
D (mm)
D/t
Axial
capacity Ntest
(kN)
854
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
Table 2 (continued)
No. of
specimens
Name of
specimens
Dimensions
Material properties
D (mm)
t (mm)
D/t
L (mm)
L/D
Concrete
compressive
strength (MPa)
Axial
capacity Ntest
(kN)
Tested by
Yield strength
of steel tube
fy (MPa)
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
CC8-A-8
CC8-C-2
CC8-C-4-1
CC8-C-4-2
CC8-C-8
CC8-D-2
CC8-D-4-1
CC8-D-4-2
CC8-D-8
108.0
222.0
222.0
222.0
222.0
337.0
337.0
337.0
337.0
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
16.7
34.3
34.3
34.3
34.4
52.1
52.0
52.0
52.0
324.0
666.0
666.0
666.0
666.0
1011.0
1011.0
1011.0
1011.0
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
77.0
25.4
40.5
40.5
77.0
25.4
41.1
41.1
85.1
853.0
843.0
843.0
843.0
843.0
823.0
823.0
823.0
823.0
2713
4964
5638
5714
7304
8475
9668
9835
13776
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
G4-1a
G4-1b
G4-1c
G4-1d
G2-2a
G2-2b
G4-2a
G4-2b
G4-2c
G4-2d
G4-2e
G2-3a
G2-3b
G2-3c
G4-3a
G4-3b
G4-3c
G2-4.5a
G2-4.5b
G2-4.5c
G4-4a
G4-4b
G4-4c
G2-6a
G2-6b
G2-8a
G2-8b
G2-8c
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
151.0
151.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
149.0
149.0
149.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
151.0
151.0
151.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
159.0
159.0
159.0
159.0
159.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
75.5
75.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
49.7
49.7
49.7
55.0
55.0
55.0
33.6
33.6
33.6
41.2
41.2
41.2
26.5
26.5
19.9
19.9
19.9
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.31
3.31
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.36
3.36
3.36
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.31
3.31
3.31
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.14
3.14
3.14
3.14
3.14
91.8
91.8
91.8
91.8
87.1
87.1
91.8
91.8
91.8
91.8
91.8
87.1 (fcu , 100)
87.1
87.1
91.8
91.8
91.8
87.1
87.1
87.1
91.8
91.8
91.8
87.1
87.1
87.1
87.1
87.1
338.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
405.0
405.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
438.0 (sy )
438.0
438.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
438.0
438.0
438.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
405.0
405.0
438.0
438.0
438.0
1773
1430
1372
2038
2132
1933
2244
2381
2077
1930
1920
2337
2394
2361
2567
2714
2734
2743
2572
2727
2704
2773
2832
2957
3099
3173
3267
3330
Yu et al. [20]
(28 tests)
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
C3
C4
C7
C8
C9
C11
C12
C14
114.4
114.6
114.9
115.0
115.0
114.3
114.3
114.5
3.98
3.99
4.91
4.92
5.02
3.75
3.85
3.84
28.7
28.7
23.4
23.4
22.9
30.5
29.7
29.8
300.0
300.0
300.5
300.0
300.5
300.0
300.0
300.0
2.62
2.62
2.62
2.61
2.61
2.62
2.62
2.62
31.4
93.6
34.7
104.9 (fcu , 150)
57.6
57.6
31.9
98.9
343.0
343.0
365.0
365.0 (sy )
365.0
343.0
343.0
343.0
948
1308
1380
1787
1413
1067
998
1359
Giakoumelis and
Lam [10]
(8 tests)
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
L-A-1-92h
L-A-2-99h
L-A-3-98h
L-B-1-85h
L-B-2-88h
L-B-3-89h
L-C-1-87h
L-C-2-101h
L-C-3-30h
L-E-1-15h
L-E-2-25h
L-E-3-13h
M-A-1-97h
M-A-2-100h
M-A-3-95h
M-B-1-20h
M-B-2-26h
M-B-3-90h
M-C-1-120h
M-C-2-96h
M-C-3-86h
M-E-1-21h
M-E-2-27h
167.4
167.3
167.5
138.9
139.0
139.5
139.9
139.9
139.9
133.4
133.2
133.4
167.0
167.1
167.8
138.6
138.9
138.6
140.3
140.0
139.7
133.4
133.2
3.32
3.35
3.33
3.29
3.29
3.37
3.58
3.54
3.48
5.21
5.06
5.23
3.37
3.33
3.33
3.31
3.36
3.30
3.62
3.60
3.61
5.17
5.03
50.4
49.9
50.3
42.2
42.2
41.4
39.1
39.5
40.2
25.6
26.3
25.5
49.6
50.2
50.4
41.9
41.3
42.0
38.8
38.9
38.7
25.8
26.5
503.0
502.0
503.0
419.0
419.0
419.0
416.0
421.0
419.0
396.0
397.0
398.0
503.0
503.0
504.0
418.0
420.0
420.0
418.0
418.0
420.0
396.0
396.0
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.02
3.01
3.00
2.97
3.01
2.99
2.97
2.98
2.98
3.01
3.01
3.00
3.02
3.02
3.03
2.98
2.99
3.01
2.97
2.97
50.8
50.8
50.8
44.6
44.6
44.6
44.6
44.6
44.6
46.5
46.5
46.5
70.6
70.6
70.6
62.5
62.5
62.5 (fcu , 100)
61.4
61.4
61.4
70.6
70.6
354.0
354.0
354.0
332.0
332.0
332.0
325.0
325.0
325.0
351.0
351.0
351.0
354.0
354.0
354.0
332.0
332.0
332.0
325.0 (sy )
325.0
325.0
351.0
351.0
1704
1668
1700
1140
1220
1180
1222
1242
1300
1612
1580
1640
2075
2105
2055
1480
1520
1500
1582
1582
1540
1810
1770
Zhang and
Wang [21]
(36 tests)
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
855
Table 2 (continued)
No. of
specimens
Name of
specimens
Dimensions
Material properties
D (mm)
t (mm)
D/t
L (mm)
L/D
Concrete
compressive
strength (MPa)
Axial
capacity Ntest
(kN)
Tested by
Yield strength
of steel tube
fy (MPa)
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
M-E-3-23h
H-B-1-310h
H-B-2-309h
H-B-3-312h
H-D-1-311h
H-D-2-308h
H-D-3-324h
H-E-1-322h
H-E-2-306h
H-E-3-323h
H-F-1-307h
H-F-2-313h
H-F-3-314h
133.2
138.9
138.7
139.0
159.3
160.2
159.3
133.3
133.4
133.1
133.3
133.1
133.1
5.07
3.28
3.28
3.29
5.36
5.01
5.07
5.10
5.20
5.04
5.43
5.44
5.43
26.3
42.3
42.3
42.2
29.7
32.0
31.4
26.1
25.7
26.4
24.5
24.5
24.5
397.0
420.0
418.0
418.0
477.0
476.0
478.0
396.0
396.0
397.0
397.0
397.0
397.0
2.98
3.02
3.01
3.01
2.99
2.97
3.00
2.97
2.97
2.98
2.98
2.98
2.98
70.6
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
351.0
332.0
332.0
332.0
356.0
356.0
356.0
351.0
351.0
351.0
392.0
392.0
392.0
1835
1688
1680
1628
2480
2440
2460
1930
1955
1955
1820
1915
1930
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
CA1-1
CA1-2
CA2-1
CA2-2
CA3-1
CA3-2
CA4-1
CA4-2
CA5-1
CA5-2
CB1-1
CB1-2
CB2-1
CB2-2
CB3-1
CB3-2
CB4-1
CB4-2
CB5-1
CB5-2
CC1-1
CC1-2
CC2-1
CC2-2
CC3-1
CC3-2
60.0
60.0
100.0
100.0
150.0
150.0
200.0
200.0
250.0
250.0
60.0
60.0
100.0
100.0
150.0
150.0
200.0
200.0
250.0
250.0
60.0
60.0
150.0
150.0
250.0
250.0
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
32.1
32.1
53.5
53.5
80.2
80.2
107.0
107.0
133.7
133.7
30.0
30.0
50.0
50.0
75.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
125.0
125.0
30.0
30.0
75.0
75.0
125.0
125.0
180.0
180.0
300.0
300.0
450.0
450.0
600.0
600.0
750.0
750.0
180.0
180.0
300.0
300.0
450.0
450.0
600.0
600.0
750.0
750.0
180.0
180.0
450.0
450.0
750.0
750.0
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2 (fcu , 150)
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
404.0
404.0
404.0 (sy )
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
312
320
822
845
1701
1670
2783
2824
3950
4102
427
415
930
920
1870
1743
3020
3011
4442
4550
432
437
1980
1910
4720
4800
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
GH1-1
GH1-2
GH2-1
GH2-2
GH3-1
GH3-2
GH3-3
GH4-1
GH4-2
GH4-3
GH5-1
GH5-2
GH5-3
GH6-1
GH6-2
GH6-3
125.0
125.0
127.0
127.0
133.0
133.0
133.0
133.0
133.0
133.0
127.0
127.0
127.0
108.0
108.0
108.0
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.50
3.50
3.50
4.70
4.70
4.70
7.00
7.00
7.00
4.50
4.50
4.50
125.0
125.0
63.5
63.5
38.0
38.0
38.0
28.3
28.3
28.3
18.1
18.1
18.1
24.0
24.0
24.0
438.0
438.0
445.0
445.0
465.0
465.0
465.0
465.0
465.0
465.0
445.0
445.0
445.0
378.0
378.0
378.0
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0 (fcu , 150)
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
106.0
106.0
106.0
232.0
232.0
258.0
258.0
352.0
352.0
352.0
352.0 (sy )
352.0
352.0
429.0
429.0
429.0
358.0
358.0
358.0
1275
1239
1491
1339
1995
1991
1962
2273
2158
2253
3404
3370
3364
1535
1578
1518
Tan [13]
(16 tests)
Table 3
Conversion relations between fcyl,150 and fcu,150 [22].
fcyl,150 (MPa)
fcu,150 (MPa)
12
15
2 (EI )eff 1
Pe =
(KA LA )2
16
20
20
25
25
30
30
37
35
45
40
50
(6a)
C3 = 0.6 + 2
(6b)
in which
45
55
50
60
As
Ac + As
55
67
0.9.
60
75
70
85
80
95
90
105
(6c)
856
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
NGN = 0.85fcyl,150 Ac +
(lk /D 4)
(7)
Asc = As + Ac
NEC 4 =
1 + c
fy
D fcyl,150
fcyl,150 Ac + a fy As
(9)
fy Ac .
(12)
The Chinese code DL/T [6] for axially loaded concrete-filled steel
circular hollow-section stub columns treats the composite section
as one material with a total area of Asc and the corresponding
nominal yielding strength of fscy . A confinement factor, is
introduced to describe the composite action between the steel tube
and the filled concrete. The axial load capacity of circular CFT stub
columns, NDL/T is given by:
NDL/T = fscy Asc
(D 2t )
6t
(13)
in which
(14a)
fy
+ 0.974
235
fck
C = 0.1038
+ 0.0309
20
As fy
B = 0.1759
Ac fck
fck = 0.67fcu,150
(14b)
(14c)
(14d)
(14e)
(14f)
c = 4.9 18.5 + 17 2 (c 0)
(a 1.0)
a = 0.25(3 + 2)
s
(10a)
To make the Chinese code DL/T [6] easier to use for calculating
the section capacity of circular CFT stub columns, a simplified
model is proposed by Han et al. [12].
(10b)
(10c)
in which Asc , , and fck are given by Eqs. (14a), (14e) and (14f),
respectively, and the validity range of Eq. (15) is: 0.1 < < 5.
in which
NplR
Ncr
NplR = fy As + fcyl,150 Ac
Ncr =
(10d)
2 (EI )eff 2
(10e)
l2
(10f)
P0,EC 4 =
1 + 4.9
fy
D fcyl,150
fcyl,150 Ac + 0.75fy As .
(11)
(15)
4. Comparative studies
4.1. Slenderness effects of AISC and Eurocode 4 specifications
In order to understand the effect of slenderness on the predicted
ultimate axial strength of circular CFT stub columns using AISC
and Eurocode 4 provisions, a comparative study of predictions of
the 250 experimental specimens with and without considering the
effect of slenderness is conducted. Two cases i.e., both ends having
full fixity or no fixity are considered as the follows:
Case 1: The effective length of the column is taken as one-half of
the column length for full fixity;
Case 2: The effective length of the column is taken as one time of
the column length for no fixity.
The ratios of the predicted results by using the AISC provisions
considering the effect of slenderness for the 250 experimental tests
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
857
Fig. 2. Illustration of effect of slenderness on the predicted ultimate axial strength of circular CFT stub columns using AISC provisions.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
858
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
Fig. 3. Illustration of the effect of slenderness on the predicted ultimate axial strength of circular CFT stub columns using Eurocode 4 provisions.
Table 4
Comparisons of circular CFT stub column strengths obtained from experiments with the predictions of existing models and new proposals.
The ratios of test results to the predictions of existing models and new proposals
Mean
Standard deviation
Maximum
Minimum
MaximumMinimum
AIJ [2,3]
Sakino et al. [11]
New proposal 1
1.143
1.084
1.003
0.113
0.102
0.100
1.488
1.406
1.317
0.871
0.795
0.747
0.617
0.611
0.570
AISC [4]
ACI [24]; AS [25,26]
Giakoumelis and Lam [10]
New proposal 2
1.232
1.311
1.025
1.002
0.134
0.134
0.146
0.099
1.665
1.750
1.468
1.299
0.844
0.933
0.636
0.771
0.821
0.817
0.832
0.528
Eurocode 4 [5]
Goode and Narayanan [7]
New proposal 3
1.020
1.084
1.022
0.105
0.118
0.100
1.419
1.411
1.353
0.779
0.816
0.773
0.640
0.595
0.580
DL/T [6]
Han et al. [12]
New proposal 4
1.068
1.115
1.002
0.123
0.106
0.096
1.603
1.371
1.241
0.786
0.844
0.745
0.817
0.527
0.496
(18)
(19)
NPR = fcyl,100 Ac + fy As .
(16)
(17)
(20)
NEC 4 = 1 + c
fy
D fcyl,150
+ (a 1)
As
fy
Ac fcyl,150
fcyl,150 Ac + fy As .
(21)
Since
As
Ac
D2 /4 [(D 2t )/2]2
4(D t )t
t
=
4 .
2
2
[(D 2t )/2]
(D 2t )
D
(22)
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
859
Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental results with results predicted by the existing models.
NEC 4 = 1 + (c + 4a 4)
fy
D fcyl,150
2 16.5 + 3.9)
NEC 4 = 1 + (17
fcyl,150 Ac + fy As .
(23)
fy
D fcyl,150
fcyl,150 Ac + fy As . (24)
860
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
(27)
NNew3 =
1 + 1.8
fy
D fcyl,150
fcyl,150 Ac + fy As .
(28)
(25)
Based on the researches of DL/T [6] and Han et al. [12], the new
equation for predicting the axial capacity of a circular CFT stub
column, NNew4 may be expressed as the following equation.
5.6. Suggested limitations of material strength and D/t ratios for the
proposed empirical models
It can be observed from Eqs. (18), (20), (25) and (28) that, the
ultimate axial strength of circular CFT stub columns predicted by
the proposed empirical models can be considered as the sectional
in which g ( ) is a function of .
(26)
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
861
(29)
or
(30)
(31)
(32)
circular CFT stub columns was evaluated. The database used herein
covered cases with normal- or high-strength steel tubes filled with
normal- or high-strength concrete. From the investigation of the
present study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) For the circular CFT stub columns with a material strength
or diameter-to-thickness ratio beyond the limitations of the
design codes such as AIJ, AISC, Eurocode 4 and DL/T, the
predictions by the corresponding design methods have almost
the same trend as those in the limitations of the design codes.
However, the variations of the predictions apparently become
larger.
(2) The upper limits of the strength of steel tubes and the concrete
compressive strength for circular CFT stub columns in AIJ, AISC,
Eurocode 4, and DL/T can be improved. The upper limits of the
diameter-to-thickness ratio in AISC, Eurocode 4, and DL/T may
also be improved as those in AIJ.
(3) Four new empirical models corresponding to AIJ, AISC (ACI, AS),
Eurocode 4, and DL/T specifications for calculating the axial
capacity of circular CFT stub columns are proposed. Comparisons between the experimental results and the predictions of
these formulae show that the proposed empirical models provide a direct, compact, and efficient representation of the ultimate strength of circular CFT stub columns made with not only
normal strength but also with high strength steel tubes and
concrete.
(4) The limiting values of the maximum effective length, the
compressive strength of the concrete, the strength of the
steel tube and the diameter-to-thickness for circular CFT stub
columns with respect to the present empirical models are
suggested. It is expected that engineers can easily use the
present empirical models to estimate the axial capacities of
circular CFT stub columns for engineering design.
Acknowledgements
This study is partially supported by the start-up funds from
Central South University, the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
(Tokubetsu Kenkyuin Shorei-hi) from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (No: 19.07399) and the Joint Research
Fund for Overseas Chinese, Hong Kong and Macao Young Scholars
(No. 50828801) from the National Natural Science Foundation of
China. The support is gratefully acknowledged. Beneficial discussion with Prof. X.F. Wang at the Shenzhen University, Prof. H.B. Ge
at Meijo University and Dr. G.D. Hatzigeorgiou at Democritus University of Thrace are gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the writers
wish to thank the reviewers of this paper for their critical comments and suggestions.
862
Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862
References
[1] Liu D. Test on high-strength rectangular concrete-filled steel hollow section stub columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2005;61(7):
902911.
[2] AIJ. Recommendations for design and construction of concrete filled steel
tubular structures. Tokyo (Japan): Architectural Institute of Japan; 1997
[in Japanese].
[3] AIJ. Standards for structural calculation of steel reinforced concrete structures
5th ed. Tokyo (Japan): Architectural Institute of Japan; 2001 [in Japanese].
[4] AISC. Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) specification for structural
steel buildings. Chicago (IL, USA): American Institute of Steel Construction;
2005.
[5] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1.1,
General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1994-1-1. European Committee for
Standardization: British Standards Institution; 2004.
[6] DL/T. Chinese design code for steel-concrete composite structures. In: DL/T
5085-1999. Beijing (China): Chinese Electricity Press; 1999 [in Chinese].
[7] Goode CD, Narayanan R. Design of concrete filled steel tubes to EC4. In: International conference on composite construction-conventional and innovative.
1997. p. 125.
[8] Saisho M, Abe T, Nakaya K. Ultimate bending strength of high-strength
concrete filled steel tube column. Journal of Structural and Construction
Engineering, AIJ 1999;523:13340 [in Japanese].
[9] OShea MD, Bridge RQ. Design of circular thin-walled concrete filled steel
tubes. Journal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE 2000;126(16):1295303.
[10] Giakoumelis G, Lam D. Axial capacity of circular concrete-filled tube columns.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(7):104968.
[11] Sakino K, Nakahara H, Morino S, Nishiyama I. Behavior of centrally loaded
concrete-filled steel-tube short columns. Journal of the Structural Engineering,
ASCE 2004;130(2):1808.
[12] Han LH, Yao GF, Zhao XL. Experiment behavior of thin-walled hollow structural steel (HSS) stub columns filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC).
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2005;61(9):124169.
[13] Tan K. Analysis of formulae for calculating loading bearing capacity of steel
tubular high strength concrete. Journal of Southwest University of Science
and Technology 2006;21(2):710. [in Chinese].
[14] Goode CD. ASCCS database of concrete-filled steel tube columns. 2007.
Available Online: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/asccs2/.
[15] Gardner NJ, Jacobson ER. Structural behavior of concrete-filled steel tubes.
ACI Journal 1967;64(7):40412.
[16] Luksha LK, Nesterovich AP. Strength testing of larger-diameter concrete filled
steel tubular members. In: Proceeding of the 3rd international conference on
steelconcrete composite structures. 1991. p. 6770.
[17] Sakino K, Hayashi H. Behavior of concrete filled steel tubular stub columns
under concentric loading. In: Proceeding of the 3rd international conference
on steel-concrete composite structures. 1991. p. 2530.
[18] Kato B. Compressive strength and deformation capacity of concrete-filled
tubular stub columns (Strength and rotation capacity of concrete-filled
tubular columns, Part 1). Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering,
AIJ 1995;468:18391 [in Japanese].
[19] Yamamoto T, Kawaguchi J, Morino S. Experimental study of the size effect
on the behaviour of concrete filled circular steel tube columns under axial
compression. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, AIJ 2002;
561:23744 [in Japanese].
[20] Yu Z, Ding F, Lin S. Researches on behavior of high-performance concrete
filled tubular steel short columns. Journal of Building Structure 2002;23(2):
417 [in Chinese].
[21] Zhang S, Wang Y. Failure modes of short columns of high-strength concrete filled steel tubes. China Civil Engineering Journal 2004;37(9):110 [in
Chinese].
[22] Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structuresPart 11: General rules and rules
for buildings. EN 1992-1-1. European Committee for Standardization: British
Standards Institution; 2004.
[23] Rashid MA, Mansur MA, Paramasivam P. Correlations between mechanical
properties of high-strength concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
ASCE 2002;14(3):2308.
[24] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-05) and
commentary (ACI 318R-05). Farmington Hills (MI, USA): American Concrete
Institute; 2005.
[25] Australian Standards. Steel structures, AS4100-1998. Sydney (Australia):
Standards Association of Australia; 1998.
[26] Australian Standards. Concrete structures, AS3600-2001. Sydney (Australia):
Standards Association of Australia; 2001.