Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Performance of hexagonal CFST members under axial compression

and bending
Wu Xu, Lin-Hai Han ⁎, Wei Li
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The compressive and flexural behavior of the hexagonal concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) members is investi-
Received 3 August 2015 gated in this study. Tests are carried out on the specimens under axial compression and bending. The parameter
Received in revised form 21 March 2016 of the experimental work is the steel ratio of the cross section, and the hollow tubular members are designed for
Accepted 23 April 2016
comparison. The failure modes, load versus deformation relations and strain developments are studied. A finite
Available online xxxx
element analysis (FEA) model is established and verified with the test results. The FEA model is then used to con-
Keywords:
duct the full range analysis on the load versus deformation relation, internal force distribution and stress devel-
Hexagonal concrete-filled steel tube (CFST) opment. The parametric study on the compressive and flexural behavior is conducted to investigate the effects of
Compressive behavior various parameters, e.g. the steel ratio, the steel yield strength and the concrete strength. Simplified models are
Flexural behavior proposed to calculate the ultimate compressive and flexural strength. It is found that the ultimate compressive
Finite element analysis (FEA) strength of hexagonal CFST stub columns could be calculated accurately referring to the equations of rectangular
Ultimate strength CFST columns in DBJ/T13-51-2010 and EC4, and the plastic stress distribution method and the fiber model meth-
od achieve good predictions of the ultimate flexural strength of the hexagonal CFST beams.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) member has been widely
used in buildings, bridges and other structures owing to its high
strength, good ductility and excellent workability. The member is
consisted of outer steel tube and core concrete, and the cross-
sectional shape of the outer steel tube could be circular, rectangular
(square), elliptical or polygonal. Recently, CFST members with hex-
agonal cross section are used in some high-rise buildings for their
aesthetic performance, as shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b), where the
members act as mega columns in the mega frame-core tube struc-
tures. Moreover, the hexagonal shape makes the column easier to
be connected with beams and the core tube.
Previously, CFST members have attracted a great deal of investiga-
tions [1–3]. Most studies were conducted on CFST members with circu-
lar and rectangular (square) cross sections. The confinement effect
between the tube and concrete of the circular CFST is the strongest,
while that of rectangular (square) section is much weaker. For the
hexagonal CFST, the confinement effect is assumed to be between
those of circular and rectangular CFSTs.
Studies on CFST members with special cross sections were also
performed. Yang et al. [4] conducted compression test on 9 T-
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lhhan@tsinghua.edu.cn, lhhanqw@gmail.com (L.-H. Han).
shaped CFST columns. Tu et al. [5] studied the hysteretic behavior
of T-shaped CFST columns, where the section was divided into
multi-cells by stiffeners. Similar research was also conducted on L-
shaped CFSTs by Zuo et al. [6] and Zhou et al. [7]. A series of experi-
mental and numerical work were conducted on elliptical CFSTs,
such as Yang et al. [8], Zhao and Packer [9], Jamaluddin et al. [10],
Dai et al. [11]. Experiments were also conducted by Evirgen et al.
[12] on regular hexagonal CFST, and Ren et al. [13] on triangular, D-
shaped and other specified cross sections.
Up to now, research on the hexagonal CFST is rather limited. The
specifications such as EC4 [14], ACI318-14 [15], ANSI/AISC360-10 [16],
DBJ/T13-51-2010 [17], AIJ-2008 [18] provide design methods of the
CFST member, but the feasibility of these methods for designing the
hexagonal CFST is unknown. Therefore, the objectives of the paper are
summarized as follows:
(1) A series of compression and bending tests are conducted to pro-
vide new experimental data on hexagonal CFST stub columns and
beams. The failure mode, load versus deformation relation and strain
development are discussed.
(2) A finite element analysis (FEA) model is proposed to predict the
compressive behavior and the flexural behavior. The load versus defor-
mation relation, internal force distribution and stress development are
further analyzed using the verified FEA model.
(3) Parametric studies are conducted to investigate the effect of
parameters, and simplified models are proposed to predict the load
carrying capacity of hexagonal CFST stub columns and beams.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.04.026
0143-974X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175 163

Nomenclature

Ac Cross-sectional area of concrete in CFST

As Cross-sectional area of steel in CFST
Asc Cross-sectional area of CFST
B Side length of hexagonal section
Ec Elastic modulus of concrete
Es Elastic modulus of steel
fck Characteristic compressive strength of concrete
fcu Cube compressive strength of concrete
fc′ Cylinder compressive strength of concrete
fy Yield strength of steel
fu Tensile strength of steel
H Height of stub column specimen
L Effective length of beam specimen
Mue Measured ultimate flexural strength
Mmax Measured maximum flexural strength
Muc Calculated ultimate flexural strength
MuFEA Ultimate flexural strength predicted by FEA model
Nue Measured ultimate compressive strength Fig. 2. Sectional dimensions of the hexagonal CFST.
Nuc Calculated ultimate compressive strength
NuFEA Ultimate compressive strength predicted by FEA model
was chosen to be the “standard” hexagonal shape in this investigation.
t Thickness of steel tube
The dual-axisymmetric cross section has equal side length (B) on all
uue Mid-span deflection corresponding to ultimate flexural
six sides, two interior angles of 90° (θ1) and four interior angles of
strength
135° (θ2). Geometric parameters of the section are summarized below:
α Steel ratio (α = As/Ac)
Δ Axial shortening of column specimen pffiffiffi 2
ε Strain Asc ¼ ð1 þ 2ÞB ≈2:414B2 ; As ≈6Bt; Ac = Asc − As ≈ 2.414B2 − 6Bt;
εue Axial strain corresponding to ultimate compressive pffiffi pffiffi
2 2 4 2 2 4
strength of column specimen Ix ¼ ð13 þ 4 ÞB ≈0:687B ; I y ¼ ð12
1
þ 6 ÞB ≈0:319B
εcue Maximum compressive strain corresponding to ulti-
mate flexural strength of beam specimen where Asc, As and Ac are the cross-sectional areas of the whole section,
δ Elongation percentage after fracture the steel tube and the core concrete, respectively; Ix and Iy are the mo-
ϕm Mid-span curvature of beam specimen ments of inertia along the strong axis (x-x) and the weak axis (y-y), re-
ϕue Mid-span curvature of beam specimen corresponding spectively. Ix is two times larger than Iy, resulting that the flexural
to ultimate flexural strength strength along the strong axis is higher. In the paper, the flexural behav-
λ Poisson's ratio of steel ior along the strong axis is investigated.
σ Stress
ξ Confinement factor (ξ = Asfy/(Acfck))
2.1.1. Design of stub column specimens
Eight stub column specimens were tested, including six hexagonal
CFST specimens and two hollow steel tube counterparts. All specimens
2. Experimental program and test results had a sectional side length (B) of 100 mm and a height (H) of 600 mm.
Detailed information of the specimens is summarized in Table 1, where
2.1. Preparation of specimens C and CH in the labels represent concrete-filled and hollow tubular
specimens, respectively; t is the thickness of steel tube; α is the steel
The schematic view of the hexagonal CFST is shown in Fig. 2. This ratio (α = As/Ac). The steel ratio (α) was the main parameter which
kind of cross section has been used in several high-rise buildings and was changed by varying the tube thickness (t). Three types of t were

Fig. 1. Application of hexagonal CFST members in high rise buildings.

164 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175

Table 1
Summary of stub column specimens.

No Specimen t α ξ εue Nue NuFEA Nuc (kN)

(mm) (με) (kN) (kN)
Nuc1 Nuc2 Nuc3

1 C4-1 3.95 0.109 0.717 1768 1865 1851 1827 1634 1806
2 C4-2 3.95 0.109 0.717 1500 1845
3 C2.5-1 2.46 0.065 0.482 2366 1598 1663 1623 1476 1654
4 C2.5-2 2.46 0.065 0.482 1834 1492
5 C6-1 5.93 0.173 1.232 2544 2062 2221 2274 1993 2155
6 C6-2 5.93 0.173 1.232 1503 2195
7 CH4-1 3.95 - - 1587 680 637 - - -
8 CH4-2 3.95 - - 1480 690

Mean of NuFEA/Nue or Nuc/Nue 1.012 1.036 0.925 1.020

COV of NuFEA/Nue or Nuc/Nue 0.064 0.049 0.049 0.053

Table 2
Summary of beam specimens.

No Specimen t α ξ εcue uue ϕue Mue Mmax MuFEA Muc (kN·m)

(mm) (με) (mm) (m−1) (kN·m) (kN·m) (kN·m)
MPSDM MSCM MFMM

1 B4-1 3.95 0.109 0.547 −4381 19.5 0.062 60.1 71.8 56.2 54.9 53.6 53.2
2 B4-2 3.95 0.109 0.547 −4245 19.6 0.061 56.8 68.5
3 B2.5-1 2.46 0.065 0.368 −2261 9.3 0.052 36.2 45.0 40.9 40.8 39.9 39.4
4 B2.5-2 2.46 0.065 0.368 −2991 13.9 0.059 38.8 46.1
5 B6-1 5.93 0.173 0.939 −5462 20.3 0.066 72.0 83.1 84.1 81.7 79.3 80.0
6 B6-2 5.93 0.173 0.939 −4211 18.7 0.061 71.4 83.4

Mean of MuFEA/Mue or Muc/Mue 1.076 1.056 1.030 1.026

COV of MuFEA/Mue or Muc/Mue 0.093 0.092 0.090 0.096

used, namely, 2.46 mm, 3.95 mm and 5.93 mm, corresponding to α of the plates had a hole in the middle, and the concrete was poured
0.065, 0.109 and 0.173, respectively. through this hole.

2.1.2. Design of beam specimens 2.1.4. Material properties

Six beam specimens were designed, as shown in Table 2. The sec-
tional side length (B) and effective length (L) of all specimens were
100 mm and 1800 mm, respectively. The steel ratio (α) was also chosen
as the main parameter.
2.1.3. Specimen fabrication
The hexagonal steel tubes were fabricated following the process in
Fig. 3. Half of the tube was first fabricated by hydraulic bending machine
according to the sequence in Fig. 3(a). Two V-shaped parts were then
welded together by full penetration weld, as shown in Fig. 3(b) and
(c). In real structures, the hexagonal steel tube is usually fabricated by
welding steel plates together. In the reduced scale model test, the fabri-
cating process above was utilized to prevent the tube from redundant
welding. After the hexagonal steel tube was formed, two steel plates
of 20 mm thickness were welded onto both sides of the tube. One of
Three types of steel plates were used to fabricate the hexagonal
tubes with thicknesses of 2.46 mm, 3.95 mm and 5.93 mm. Material
properties from coupon tests are shown in Table 3, where t is the thick-
ness of steel plate; fy is the yield strength; fu is the tensile strength; Es is
the modulus of elasticity; λ is the Poisson's ratio; δ is the elongation per-
centage after fracture.
The self-consolidating concrete was chosen for the core concrete for
its good workability. The proportion of concrete mixture was: water
186 kg/m3, cement 428 kg/m3, fly ash 143 kg/m3, fine aggregate
783 kg/m3, coarse aggregate 870 kg/m3 and super plasticizer 3.75 kg/
m3. The tested slump and slump flow of fresh concrete were 252 mm
and 610 mm, respectively. For column specimens, the measured cube
compressive strength (fcu) and modulus of elasticity (Ec) of concrete at
the test day were 61.8 N/mm2 and 34,500 N/mm2, respectively. For
beam specimens, the measured fcu and Ec of concrete at the test day
were 79.4 N/mm2 and 39,800 N/mm2, respectively.

Fig. 3. Fabricating process of the hexagonal tube.

 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175 165

Table 3
Material properties of steel tubes.
buckling of steel tube occurred near the middle section for all the hexag-
onal CFST columns. The phenomenon was more obvious when the steel
Label t (mm) fy (N/mm2) fu (N/mm2) Es (N/mm2) λ δ ratio (α) was smaller. For specimen C2.5-1 (α = 0.065), the outward
P-4 3.95 279 427 2.04 × 105 0.262 0.33 buckling was serious, resulting in a weld crack at the buckled zone. Fail-
P-2.5 2.46 313 438 2.04 × 105 0.287 0.31 ure modes of concrete are also shown in the same figure, and the con-
P-6 5.93 302 429 1.98 × 105 0.282 0.36
crete was crushed where the tube buckled. The severe concrete crush
was observed for specimen C2.5-1 with small α (= 0.065), as shown
in Fig. 5(b), while the minor concrete crush was found for specimen
2.2. Test setup and measurements
C6-1 with large α (=0.173), as shown in Fig. 5(c). The failure modes
of hexagonal CFST columns are similar to those of rectangular CFST col-
2.2.1. Compression test
umns. The failure mode of hollow steel tubular specimen (CH4-1) is
The compression test was conducted on a testing machine with a
shown in Fig. 5(d), where both outward and inward buckling were
loading capacity of 10,000 kN. The schematic view of the test setup
observed.
and instrumentation is depicted in Fig. 4(a). Four displacement trans-
ducers were placed on the top and bottom loading plates to measure
2.3.1.2. Load versus deformation performance. The load (N) versus axial
the longitudinal shortening. Four strain gauges were placed longitudi-
shortening (Δ/H) relations of all stub columns are depicted and com-
nally to measure the longitudinal compressive strain in the middle
pared in Fig. 6. The maximum load is defined as the ultimate compres-
cross section. Another four strain gauges were placed transversely to
sive strength (Nue). Fig. 6(a) shows the effect of steel ratio (α). Both
measure the transverse strain.
the stiffness and strength increased with the increase of α. After the ul-
timate compressive strength was reached, the descending slop was
2.2.2. Bending test steeper when α decreased. Fig. 6(b) shows the effect of core concrete,
The bending test was a two points loading one, where the middle where the stiffness and strength of the hexagonal CFST columns were
segment was in pure bending and two side segments were subjected much higher than those of the hollow steel tube counterparts. After
to combined bending and shear. The schematic view of the test setup the ultimate compressive strength, the load decrease was smooth for
and instrumentation is shown in Fig. 4(b). Two displacement transduc- the hollow steel tubes, for there was no constraint for the deformation
ers were placed at two ends to measure the supports' offsets. Three of the steel tube.
displacement transducers were placed at two loading points and the
mid-span to measure the deflection. Seven strain gauges were placed 2.3.1.3. Strain analysis. The load (N) versus longitudinal steel strain (εl)
longitudinally in the mid-span. Another three strain gauges were placed relations are shown and compared in Fig. 7, where εl is the averaged
transversely. value of longitudinal steel strains ε1l, ε2l, ε3l and ε4l in Fig. 4(a) and the
compressive strain is positive. The steel strain results reflect the local-
2.3. Test results ized strain distribution. The initial stiffness of the N-εl relation was
close to that of N-Δ/H curve, for the strain distribution was uniform
2.3.1. Compression test along the height at the beginning. Table 1 shows the ultimate strains
(εue) corresponding to the ultimate compressive strengths, which indi-
2.3.1.1. Failure modes. All the stub columns experienced a smooth load- cated the yielding of steel when the specimen reached the ultimate
ing process. Typical failure modes are shown in Fig. 5. The outward strength. The points when local buckling occurred are marked in the

Fig. 4. Test setup and instrumentation: compression test and bending test (Unit: mm).

Fig. 5. Typical failure modes of column specimens.

166 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175
Fig. 6. Load (N) versus axial shortening (Δ/H) relations of column specimens.
figure as well. The local buckling was postponed when α increased, for
the out of plane flexural resistance of steel plate was enhanced with
larger tube thickness. For specimens C2.5 (α = 0.065), the strain devel-
opment of steel tube outside the buckling zone was minor after the
buckling occurred.
The effect of core concrete on the N-εl relations is shown in Fig. 7(b).
Due to the absence of core concrete, the local buckling of hollow tubular
specimen was more severe than that of the concrete-filled one. For hex-
agonal CFST specimens C4, εl increased after the ultimate strength,
while for the hollow tubular specimens CH4, decrease of εl was ob-
served after the ultimate strength due to the severe local buckling.
2.3.2. Bending test
2.3.2.1. Failure modes. The bending test was ended until brittle failure of
the beam occurred or the mid-span deflection reached L/15 (120 mm).
Fig. 8 shows the failure modes of specimens, where plastic hinges were
formed in the pure bending segment and the final failure mainly oc-
curred near the mid-span. The significant difference was observed for
specimens with different steel ratios (α). For specimens B4 (α =
0.109) and B2.5 (α = 0.065), the tube fracture occurred in the tensile
side and outward buckling was found on the compressive side near
the mid-span when the deflection was about L/15. For specimens B6
(α = 0.173), no tube fracture occurred when the deflection was L/15
and the steel tube only experienced slight outward buckling. It is due
to the fact that when α was smaller, the strain demand at the tensile
bottom was higher because the height of the neutral axis was uplifted,
which could result in a tube fracture.
Fig. 7. Load (N) versus longitudinal steel strain (εl) relations of column specimens.
The failure mode of core concrete of specimen B4-2 is shown in
Fig. 8(d). Several parallel cracks appeared on the tensile side of the con-
crete. The main crack was observed at the mid-span where the tube
fracture occurred. Slight crush of concrete was found on the compres-
sive side.
2.3.2.2. Load versus deformation performance. The moment (M) versus
mid-span curvature (ϕm) relations are depicted in Fig. 9 to describe
the cross-sectional flexural behavior. All the M-ϕm curves exhibited ex-
cellent ductility with no decrease of load. The stiffness and strength of
the beam increased as the steel ratio (α) increased.
The failure modes and the measured curves show that the flexural
behavior of hexagonal CFST beams is similar to that of circular CFST
beams [19] and rectangular (square) CFST beams [20]. Therefore, the ul-
timate flexural strength of hexagonal CFST beam is defined as the load
corresponding to a maximum steel tube tensile strain of 0.01 according
to Han [20]. The ultimate points of tested specimens are marked in Fig. 9
and the corresponding mid-span displacement (uue), mid-span curva-
ture (ϕue) and flexural strength (Mue) are summarized in Table 2. The
mid-span displacement at the ultimate point (uue) ranged from L/193
to L/92, which was much larger than the serviceability limit of deflection
(L/360). At the ultimate point, the hexagonal CFST beam reached an ac-
ceptable deflection with enough deformation allowance before failure.
Further analysis shows that uue increased when α increased, which
was also true for the corresponding mid-span curvature (ϕue). This is
because when α was larger, the height of neutral axis was lower,
which allowed a larger curvature with a given maximum tensile strain.
Comparisons between the ultimate flexural strength (Mue) and the
 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175 167

Fig. 8. Failure modes of beam specimens.

maximum flexural strength (Mmax) are shown in Table 2, where Mmax is of concrete, and it then moved upward slowly. The plastic strain devel-
the maximum moment recorded during the test. The results show that oped quickly when the moment increased from 0.9Mue to Mue, and the
Mue were smaller than Mmax with a mean Mue/Mmax ratio of 0.839. plane cross-section assumption was still available at this moment.

2.3.2.3. Strain analysis. Fig. 10(a) shows the moment (M) versus longitu-
dinal steel strain (εl) relations of specimen B4-1. Due to the presence of
concrete, the steel strain in the tensile side developed faster than that in
the compressive side. At the ultimate point (M = Mue), majority of the
steel tube had yielded. When the load reached Mmax, the magnitude of
ε1l, ε5l and ε7l all exceeded 20,000 με and ε3l was − 7722 με, which
showed excellent deformation capacity.
The longitudinal steel strain (εl) distributions along height at differ-
ent load levels are shown in Fig. 10(b), where the strain distribution
obeyed the plane cross-section assumption before 0.9Mue. The neutral
axis was above the mid-height of the cross section due to the existence
3. Analytical behavior of the hexagonal CFST members
3.1. Finite element analysis (FEA) model
3.1.1. General description of the FEA model
The schematic view of FEA model established in ABAQUS is shown in
Fig. 11. Solid elements (C3D8R) are applied for the core concrete, rigid
plate and loading block, while shell elements (S4R) are applied for the
steel tube. Details of the interaction and the material models can be
found in Han et al. [21]. In order to achieve a better convergence, the dis-
placement controlled load strategy is used in the model.
168 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175
Fig. 9. Moment (M) versus mid-span curvature (ϕm) relations of beam specimens.
3.1.2. Axial compressive stress-strain model for confined concrete
For the concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model in ABAQUS, the
plastic behavior of concrete is decided by the size and the flowing rule
of the yield surface, and the uni-axial stress (σ)-strain (ε) relation
should be defined for the yield surface. Previous research by Mander
et al. [22] and Attard and Setunge [23] showed that the compressive
strength and ductility of concrete was enhanced owing to the confine-
ment provided by the transverse rebars. In order to obtain a more accu-
rate simulation result, the σ-ε curve of the plain concrete should be
modified with improved strength and ductility for the confined one.
Fig. 10. Longitudinal steel strain development and distribution of typical beam specimen (B4–1).
Fig. 11. Schematic view of the finite element analysis (FEA) model.
This principle has been adopted in the modeling of CFST members by
Han et al. [21] and concrete-encased steel composite members by
Ellobody and Young [24]. Fig. 12(a) compares the σ-ε relations of con-
fined concrete in circular and rectangular CFST sections suggested by
Han et al. [21] and the unconfined one suggested by Attard and Setunge
[23]. The concrete characteristic compressive strength (fck) is assumed
A f f
to be the same, and the nominal confinement factors (ξ ¼ Acs f y ¼ α f y )
ck ck
for CFST sections are the same as well. It can be seen that the ductility
of the curve is improved for the confined concrete, and the concrete in
the circular CFST has the highest strength after the ultimate compres-
sive strength.
The investigation is carried out to find a proper σ-ε curve for the con-
fined concrete in hexagonal CFST. CFST stub column samples with circu-
lar, rectangular and hexagonal cross sections are designed and the
unconfined concrete constitutive model proposed by Attard and
Setunge [23] is applied for all samples tentatively. Parameters of the
columns are designed to be the same: H = 600 mm, As = 2400 mm2,
Ac = 21740 mm2, α = 0.110. The yield strength (fy) of steel tube is
345 N/mm2 and the concrete strength (fck) is 41 N/mm2, with a ξ of
0.929 in all samples.
The comparison of the load (N) versus axial shortening (Δ/H) rela-
tions of different samples is shown in Fig. 12(b). As the cross-sectional
area and material properties for all samples are the same, the differ-
ences among results come from the shapes of these cross sections. It
can be seen that the curve of the hexagonal CFST is close to that of the
rectangular CFST, which indicates the confinement from the steel tube
to the core concrete in the hexagonal CFST is similar to that in the rect-
angular one.
The experimental results of CFST stub column specimens of different
cross-sectional shapes are also compared. Fig. 12(c) shows the N/Nue-Δ/
H relations of the square specimen (sssc-1), circular specimen (scsc2-1)
in Han and Yao [25] and hexagonal specimen (C2.5-1) in this paper. The
confinement factors (ξ) of specimens sssc-1, scsc2-1 and C2.5-1 are
 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175
Fig. 12. Effect of cross-sectional shape on the compressive behavior.
0.496, 0.467 and 0.482, respectively, which indicates similar section
combination of steel tube and core concrete. The load (N) is normalized
by the ultimate compressive strength (Nue) to exclude the influence of
section size and material strength. As can be seen, the descending part
of the curve of hexagonal specimen (C2.5-1) is closer to that of square
specimen (sssc-1), which is consistent with the numerical results.
Fig. 13 shows the longitudinal stress (σl, on the left of each figure)
and contact stress (p, on the right of each figure) of the core concrete
for different cross sections when the ultimate compressive strength is
reached. For the hexagonal and rectangular sections, σl ranges from
0.95 fc′ to 1.05 fc′ as shown in Fig. 13(a) and (b), respectively. The stress
concentration is observed in corners of the section and the area is limit-
ed. For the circular section, σl ranges from 1.03 fc′ to 1.12 fc′ on the cross
section, as seen in Fig. 13(c). In terms of the contact stress (p), it appears
only in the corners of the hexagonal and rectangular sections, while it
distributes uniformly along the circular cross section.
The load versus deformation relation, longitudinal stress and contact
stress distribution of the hexagonal CFST is similar to those of the rect-
angular one, therefore the σ-ε relation of confined concrete in rectangu-
lar CFST suggested by Han et al. [21] is tentatively selected for the core
concrete in the hexagonal CFST in the study.
3.1.3. Effect of cold forming
As explained in Section 2.1.3, the hexagonal steel tubes are fabricat-
ed by cold forming process. The measured inside bending radiuses for
the corners of 90° and 135° are 4 mm and 10 mm, respectively. The
effect of cold forming should be discussed. The column and beam
models with and without the effect of cold forming are established as
shown in Fig. 14(a). The inside bend radiuses are the same to the mea-
sured results. The yield strength increase of the corner steel for the cold
formed tube is considered according to AISI-S100-2007 [26]. It can be
seen from Fig. 14(b) and (c) that both compressive and flexural
strengths increase when considering the cold forming effect. However,
Fig. 13. Longitudinal stress and contact stress distribution of core concrete of different sections (Unit: N/mm2).
169
the increase ratios for the ultimate compressive and flexural strength
are only 2.6% and 2.9%, respectively. In addition, the cold forming pro-
cess also weakens the fractural ductility of steel, which may accelerate
the fracture of steel tube in beam specimens. As observed in the test,
specimens B2.5 and B4 with thinner tube thickness experienced frac-
ture of the steel tube. However, the fracture occurred when the mid-
span displacement was about L/15, which was much higher than the
mid-span displacement at the ultimate point (L/193-L/92). The effect
of fracture on the flexural performance of beam specimens is minor.
Therefore, it is reasonable to neglect the cold forming effect in the FEA
model.
3.1.4. Verification of the FEA model
Fig. 5(a) and (d) compares the observed and predicted failure modes
of column specimens. The FEA model gives similar results of the local
buckling of steel tube in both hexagonal CFST and hollow tubular spec-
imens. The predicted N-Δ/H relations of column specimens are com-
pared with the measured ones in Fig. 6, where the FEA model achieves
reasonable estimation for both hexagonal CFST and hollow tubular
specimens. The numerical ultimate compressive strengths (NuFEA) of
all column specimens are summarized and compared with the tested
ones (Nue) in Table 1. The mean value and COV of NuFEA/Nue are 1.012
and 0.064, respectively.
The predicted failure modes of the steel tube and core concrete in
beam specimen B4–1 are shown in Fig. 8(e) and (f), respectively. The
outward buckling of steel tube occurs and significant concrete compres-
sive and tensile plastic strains are observed in the FEA model, which is
coincident with the test results. In the FEA model, the mid-span curva-
ture (ϕm) is derived by (εt–εc)/(2.414B), where εt and εc are the longitu-
dinal strain of the bottom and top fiber of the hexagonal tube,
respectively; 2.414B is the gross height of the hexagonal section. The
predicted M-ϕm relations are also compared with the tested ones in
Fig. 9. The numerical ultimate flexural strengths (MuFEA) and the tested
170 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175
Fig. 14. Effect of cold forming on compressive and flexural behavior of hexagonal CFST.
ones (Mue) are listed in Table 2, and the mean value and COV of MuFEA/
Mue are 1.076 and 0.093, respectively.
The comparisons show that the σ-ε curve for confined concrete in
rectangular CFST members can be used for the modeling of core con-
crete in hexagonal CFST members. The proposed FEA model provides
reasonable results on both the compressive and flexural behavior of
hexagonal CFST members. The mechanical analysis is then conducted
using the proposed FEA model.
3.2. Analytical behavior
3.2.1. Compressive behavior of hexagonal CFST
A numerical sample is established in this part to study the compres-
sive behavior of hexagonal CFST stub column. The properties of the
column are as follows: H = 600 mm, B = 100 mm, t = 4 mm, fy =
345 N/mm2, fck = 41 N/mm2, α = 0.110, ξ = 0.929. The predicted
load (N) versus axial shortening (Δ/H) relation of this sample is
shown in Fig.15, where the load resisted by the steel tube (Ns) and the
core concrete (Nc) are also depicted. Several feature points are marked
and the curve is divided into four stages, i.e. OA, AB, BC and CD.
The axial shortening reaches the yield strain of steel tube at point A,
while Ns and Nc increase linearly during this stage. At point B, Nc reaches
its peak load and Ns remains nearly unchanged due to yielding, thus the
load (N) reaches its ultimate compressive strength (NuFEA). After point
B, the curve enters the descending stage when Nc declines due to the
crush of core concrete and Ns starts to decrease. The steel tube is
subjected to transverse tension and longitudinal compression at this
stage. Based on the Von-Mises yield criterion, the longitudinal compres-
sive stress decreases for the transverse tension, leading to the decrease
of Ns. At point C, the load decreases to 0.85NuFEA. After that, Nc continues
to decrease while Ns remains steady. The point corresponding to an
axial shortening of 0.01 is defined as point D and the load is defined as
Fig. 15. Typical load (N) versus axial shortening (Δ/H) relations of hexagonal CFST column.
the residual strength (Nr). For this particular sample, Nr equals to
0.637NuFEA.
The stress (σ) versus axial shortening (Δ/H) relations of steel tube
are shown in Fig. 16, where the longitudinal stress (σl), transverse stress
(σt) and the Mises stress (σMises) are all depicted. In addition, stresses at
two locations (1 and 2) are shown in straight and dashed lines, respec-
tively. At the location 1, the steel yields at point A, with σl and σt of
333.8 N/mm2 and −5.7 N/mm2, respectively. After that, σt increases be-
tween Point A and Point C, and σl decreases due to the Von-Mises yield
criterion. After point C, σt tends to be steady, while σl increases slightly
due to the hardening of steel. The development of Ns in Fig. 15 can be ex-
plained by this stress development. It can also be seen that, the stress
development at locations 1 and 2 are almost the same, while σt at loca-
tion 1 is slightly larger than that at location 2 after point C due to the
hexagonal shape.
The longitudinal stress (σl) and the contact stress (p) distribution of
the core concrete at typical points are further compared in Fig. 17. At
points A and B, the central part has a uniform σl distribution with mod-
erate stress concentration in the corners. At point C, the region between
the corners and central part experiences a decrease of stress due to the
concrete crush. However, the stress in the corners still increases with a
maximum σl of 1.98 fc′ while that in the central part increases to about
1.20 fc′. The confinement in the corners and the central part are
stronger.
The contact stress (p) exists only near the corners during the whole
process, as shown in Fig. 17. The maximum contact stress (pmax)
corresponding to points A, B, C and D are 2.6 N/mm2, 17.3 N/mm2,
48.1 N/mm2 and 35.5 N/mm2, respectively. The confinement is weak
before the steel tube yields at point A, when the concrete is also in the
elastic state. After that, p starts to increase due to the transverse expan-
sion of the core concrete between point A and point C. For instance, pmax
at point C is 178% larger than that at point B. The concrete totally fails
after point C, causing the decrease of contact stress.
3.2.2. Flexural behavior of hexagonal CFST
Full range analysis is also conducted based on a standard beam spec-
imen with the following parameters: L = 1800 mm, B = 100 mm, t =
4 mm, fy = 345 N/mm2, fck = 41 N/mm2, α = 0.110, ξ = 0. 929. For
the CFST beam subjected to bending, the maximum tensile strain (εt)
and compressive strain (εc) appear at the bottom fiber and the top
fiber of the steel tube respectively. The typical moment (M) versus
mid-span curvature (ϕm) relation is displayed in Fig. 18. Several feature
points are marked and the curve is divided into several stages according
to εt and εc.
At point A, εt reaches the crack strain of concrete (εck). At points B
and C, εt and εc reach the yield strain of steel tube, respectively. At
point D, εc reaches − 0.003, which is corresponding to the ultimate
state defined by ACI318-14 [15] for reinforced concrete members. At
point E, εt reaches 0.01, which is defined as the ultimate point in the
paper. At point F, εt reaches 0.02 and this point is defined to study the
flexural behavior under large deformation. It can be seen that, the
 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175 171

Fig. 16. Stress (σ) versus axial shortening (Δ/H) relations of steel tube in hexagonal CFST column.

Fig. 17. Longitudinal stress and contact stress distribution of core concrete at typical points (Unit: N/mm2).

curve is almost linear before the bottom steel fiber yields at point B.
After that, an elasto-plastic stage is shown with a decreasing slope.
The bottom steel fiber yields (point B) before the top steel fiber (point
Fig. 18. Typical moment (M) versus mid-span curvature (ϕm) relation of hexagonal CFST
beam.
C) due to the existence of core concrete. At points D and E, the deforma-
tion continues to develop while the strength development is not signif-
icant. The moment at point E (63.8 kN m) is only 5.4% larger than that at
point D (60.5 kN m). At point F, the deformation develops quickly with
the load nearly unchanged, indicating a ductile flexural behavior of the
beam.
The longitudinal stress (σl) distribution of the steel tube and core
concrete along height at typical points are depicted in Fig. 19(a) and
(b), respectively. Fig. 19(a) shows that the distribution of σl is linear
before the bottom steel fiber yields at point B. At the ultimate point E,
most of the tube has yielded.
Fig. 19(b) shows the longitudinal stress (σl) distribution of concrete,
where a parabolic distribution is seen at the beginning of loading. When
the maximum compressive strain reaches − 0.003 at point D, the
maximum σl reaches −1.06 fc′. σl increases with a maximum stress of
− 1.25 fc′ at point E. After that, at point F, σl near the edge of the
compressive zone decreases due to the crush of concrete, which is
coincident with the experimental observation.
The moment (M) versus mid-span curvature (ϕm) curves of the hex-
agonal CFST beam, the corresponding hollow steel tube beam and con-
crete beam are compared in Fig. 20. In addition, the contributions of the
concrete and the steel tube components are extracted from the
172 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175
Fig. 19. Longitudinal stress distribution in hexagonal CFST beam at typical points.
hexagonal CFST beam and shown in the same figure using dashed lines.
The internal moment distribution shows that the steel tube provides
most of the bending resistance with excellent ductility. The hollow
steel tube beam and the steel tube component in the hexagonal CFST
behave almost the same when ϕm is smaller than 0.2 m−1. However,
when ϕm is larger than 0.2 m−1, the strength of the hollow steel tube
beam decreases due to local buckling, while that of the steel tube com-
ponent remains stable for the support of core concrete. The sectional de-
formation of the hexagonal CFST beam and corresponding hollow steel
tube beam at a ϕm of 0.5 m−1 are shown in the figure. For the existence
of core concrete, the lateral expansion of the hexagonal CFST beam is
0.96 mm, which is much smaller than that of the hollow steel tube
beam (14.20 mm). For the concrete beam, the maximum lateral expan-
sion recorded is only 0.09 mm. The core concrete component inside the
hexagonal CFST beam carries much more moment than the correspond-
ing concrete beam, for the concrete beam may easily be fractured.
Therefore, the flexural strength of hexagonal CFST is higher than the
sum of those of the hollow steel tube beam and concrete beam.
It should be noted that, when ϕm exceeds 0.1 m−1, the flexural
strength of the hexagonal CFST beam decreases slightly due to the
crush of concrete, as indicated in the stress distribution at point F in
Fig. 19(b). The phenomenon is slightly different from that of the circular
CFST beam, where the flexural strength keeps increasing slightly. As
mentioned in Section 3.1.2, when compared with the hexagonal CFST
column, the circular CFST column provides stronger confinement to
the core concrete. The confinement from the steel tube to the core con-
crete in the compressive part of the circular CFST beam is also stronger
than that from the hexagonal one. Therefore the ductility of the circular
CFST beam is better.
Fig. 20. Comparison of M-ϕm relations between hexagonal CFST beam, hollow steel tube beam and concrete beam.
4. Parametric study and simplified model
4.1. Compressive behavior of hexagonal CFST
4.1.1. Parametric study
The parameters affecting the compressive behavior of the hexagonal
CFST column includes the steel ratio (α), steel yield strength (fy) and
concrete strength (fck). The effects of parameters on the load (N)
versus axial shortening (Δ/H) relations are shown in Fig. 21, where
the detailed parameters are shown for clarity and the effect of con-
f
finement factor (ξ ¼ α f y ) is also discussed. The height (H) and sec-
ck
tion size (B) of all the specimens are 600 mm and 100 mm,
respectively. The parameter ranges are: α = 0.055 – 0.218, f y =
185 – 735 N/mm2, fck = 20 – 88 N/mm2, ξ = 0.5 - 2.0.
Fig. 21(a) shows the effect of steel ratio (α), where α is changed by
varying the tube thickness (t). It can be seen that the stiffness and
strength increases with the increase of α. The ductility of the curve is
also improved with a larger α. The effect of steel yield strength (fy) is
shown in Fig. 21(b), where the stiffness keeps the same while the
strength increases significantly. Fig. 21(c) shows the stiffness and
strength increases as fck increases. However, the ductility decreases
with a larger fck. Further analysis shows that the confinement factor ξ
actually influences the ductility development. Better ductility for the
stub column specimen is achieved when ξ is larger.
4.1.2. Discussion on the ultimate compressive strength
As denoted previously, the confinement effect and the stress
distribution of the hexagonal CFST column is similar to those of the
rectangular one. Therefore the equations for calculating the ultimate
 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175 173

Fig. 21. Effect of parameters on the N-Δ/H relation of hexagonal CFST column.

Fig. 22. Comparison between the calculated and numerical ultimate compressive strength.

compressive strength (Nuc) of rectangular CFST columns are utilized
tentatively for that of the hexagonal CFST columns. Methods from
three design specifications including the Chinese code DBJ/T13-51-
2010 [17], the Japanese code AIJ-2008 [18] and the European code EC4
[14] are adopted in the paper, where the confinement effect is consid-
ered in Chinese and European codes.
Table 1 shows the measured (Nue) and code-calculated strength
for test specimens, where Nuc1, Nuc2 and Nuc3 are predicted using DBJ/
T13-51-2010 [17], AIJ-2008 [18] and EC4 [14], respectively. The mean
value of Nuc1/Nue, Nuc2/Nue and Nuc3/Nue are 1.036, 0.925 and 1.020, re-
spectively. In addition, the numerical results (NuFEA) of samples in the
parametric study are also compared with the code-calculated results
(Nuc) in Fig. 22, where the mean value and COV of Nuc/NuFEA are also
shown. All the three methods agree well with the numerical results
with a mean Nuc/NuFEA of 1.007, 0.918 and 0.996, respectively. The com-
parisons show that the methods in DBJ/T13-51-2010 [17] and EC4 [14]
which consider the confinement effect give better predictions, while the
predicted results by AIJ-2008 [18] are conservative.
4.2. Flexural behavior of hexagonal CFST
4.2.1. Parametric study
The parametric study is conducted on the flexural behavior of hexag-
onal CFST beams based on the standard beam specimen in Section 3.2.2.
The effective length (L) and the side length (B) of all specimens are
1800 mm and 100 mm, respectively. The parameter ranges are: α =
0.043 – 0.331, fy = 235 – 420 N/mm2, fck = 20 – 72 N/mm2. The effects
of the steel ratio (α), steel yield strength (fy) and the concrete strength
(fck) on the moment (M) versus mid-span curvature (ϕm) curves are
shown in Fig. 23(a), (b) and (c), respectively.
Fig. 23(a) reflects the effect of steel ratio (α). As α increases, the stiff-
ness and strength of the curve increases significantly. The effect of fy is
shown in Fig 23(b). As fy increases, the strength increases while the stiff-
ness keeps the same. The effect of fck is shown in Fig. 23(c). The stiffness
and strength increases moderately when fck increases. In general, the ef-
fect of α and fy of steel tube on the flexural behavior of hexagonal CFST
beam is significant while the effect of fck of core concrete is moderate.

Fig. 23. Effect of parameters on the M-ϕm relation of hexagonal CFST beam.
174 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175

Fig. 25. Comparison between calculated and numerical ultimate flexural strength.

state. However, the simplified methods overestimate the stress of core

concrete. Therefore the predicted height of neutral axis is higher than
reality, which leads to an underestimation of the flexural strength of
the steel tube component. When the confinement ratio is large
(ξ N 0.5), the three methods provide more accurate predictions. Mean-
while, the SCM assumes that the extreme compressive strain of concrete
is − 0.003. For specimens with larger confinement ratio (ξ N 2), the
compressive strain at the ultimate state will be larger, leading to an un-
derestimation of the flexural strength. The mean values of Muc/MuFEA for
PSDM, SCM and FMM are 0.999, 0.958 and 0.986, respectively. General-
ly, the PSDM as well as the FMM could provide reasonable predictions
of the ultimate flexural strength while the results from the SCM are
conservative.

5. Conclusions
Fig. 24. Methods for predicting ultimate flexural strength of hexagonal CFST beam.
reported in this paper:
4.2.2. Discussion on the ultimate flexural strength
Three methods in Fig. 24, i.e. the plastic stress distribution method
(PSDM), strain compatibility method (SCM) and the fiber model meth-
od (FMM) are used to evaluate the ultimate flexural strength of hexag-
onal CFST beam. The PSDM is adopted by EC4 [14] for the ultimate
flexural strength of composite members. The SCM is suggested by
ACI318-14 [15] for reinforced concrete members, where the extreme
compressive strain of concrete is assumed to be −0.003. The measured
maximum compressive strain of steel (εcue) at the ultimate point is
summarized in Table 2, where the strains were around − 0.003. The
FMM is introduced by researchers such as Han [20] to predict the
flexural behavior of CFSTs, where the extreme tensile strain of steel
tube is assumed to be 0.01. Generally, due to the assumption that all
sections enter the plastic state, the predicted results of PSDM are the
highest. The SCM and FMM both depend on the plane cross-section
assumption, which is verified by the strain results in the paper. Howev-
er, the definitions of the ultimate state in these two methods are
different.
The tested ultimate flexural strength (Mue) of tested specimens and
the calculated results (Muc) are shown in Table 2. The mean values of
Muc/Mue for PSDM, SCM and FMM are 1.056, 1.030 and 1.026, respec-
tively. Further comparison is conducted between the numerical results
(MuFEA) by FEA model and the ones by simplified methods (Muc) in
Fig. 25. The results are sorted by the confinement ratio (ξ). For hexago-
nal CFST beams with small confinement ratio (ξ b 0.5), these three
methods tend to provide conservative results. Due to the small confine-
ment ratio, the stress of core concrete will not reach fc′ at the ultimate
The following conclusions can be drawn based on the limited study
(1) For the hexagonal CFST stub columns, outward local buckling of
steel tube was occurred when columns failed owing to the sup-
port of concrete, while inward and outward local buckling was
observed for the hollow tubular ones. The compressive strength
and ductility was improved for the concrete-filled specimens.
The local buckling of steel tube was also improved owing to the
increase of steel ratio.
(2) For the hexagonal CFST beams, the outward local buckling of
steel tube and the crushing of concrete in compressive zone
was observed when specimens failed. The tube fracture occurred
more easily for the beams with smaller steel ratio. The crushing
of concrete and the buckling of tube was improved when the
steel ratio increased.
(3) The FEA model was established and verified for both column and
beam specimens. The constitutive model of confined concrete in
rectangular CFST could be used for the core concrete in hexago-
nal CFST. The proposed model provided reasonable predictions
of the failure modes and the load versus deformation curves of
both stub column and beam specimens.
(4) For stub column specimens, the increase of steel ratio and steel
yield strength improved both the compressive strength and
ductility, while the increase of concrete strength improved the
compressive strength but weakened the ductility. For beam
specimens, the effects of steel ratio and steel yield strength
were significant on the flexural strength while that of concrete
strength was moderate.
 W. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 162–175
(5) The feasibility of simplified models in current codes on the
predictions of ultimate compressive and flexural strengths for
hexagonal CFST members was discussed. It was found that the
ultimate compressive strength of hexagonal CFST column could
be estimated accurately referring to the equations for the rectan-
gular CFST members in DBJ/T13-51-2010 and EC4. The plastic
stress distribution method and the fiber model method could
provide reasonable predictions for the ultimate flexural strength
of hexagonal CFST beam.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in the paper is part of the Tsinghua University
Initiative Scientific Research Program (No. 2013Z02). The financial sup-
port is highly appreciated.
References
[1] M. Shams, M.A. Saadeghvaziri, State of the art of concrete-filled steel tubular col-
umns, ACI Struct. J. 94 (5) (1997) 558–571.
[2] N.E. Shanmugam, B. Lakshmi, State of the art report on steel-concrete composite
columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 57 (10) (2001) 1041–1080.
[3] L.H. Han, W. Li, R. Bjorhovde, Developments and advanced applications of concrete-
filled steel tubular (CFST) structures: members, J. Constr. Steel Res. 100 (2014)
211–228.
[4] Y.L. Yang, H. Yang, S.M. Zhang, Compressive behavior of T-shaped concrete filled
steel tubular columns, Int. J. Steel Struct. 10 (4) (2010) 419–430.
[5] Y.Q. Tu, Y.F. Shen, Y.G. Zeng, L.Y. Ma, Hysteretic behavior of multi-cell T-shaped
concrete-filled steel tubular columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 85 (2014) 106–116.
[6] Z.L. Zuo, J. Cai, C. Yang, Q.J. Chen, G. Sun, Axial load behavior of L-shaped CFT stub
columns with binding bars, Eng. Struct. 37 (2012) 88–98.
[7] T. Zhou, Z.H. Chen, H.B. Liu, Seismic behavior of special shaped column composed of
concrete filled steel tubes, J. Constr. Steel Res. 75 (2012) 131–141.
[8] H. Yang, D. Lam, L. Gardner, Testing and analysis of concrete-filled elliptical hollow
sections, Eng. Struct. 30 (12) (2008) 3771–3781.
175
[9] X.L. Zhao, J.A. Packer, Tests and design of concrete-filled elliptical hollow section
stub columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (6–7) (2009) 617–628.
[10] N. Jamaluddin, D. Lam, X.H. Dai, J. Ye, An experimental study on elliptical concrete
filled columns under axial compression, J. Constr. Steel Res. 87 (2013) 6–16.
[11] H.X. Dai, D. Lam, N. Jamaluddin, J. Ye, Numerical analysis of slender elliptical con-
crete filled columns under axial compression, Thin-Walled Struct. 77 (2014) 26–35.
[12] B. Evirgen, A. Tuncan, K. Taskin, Structural behavior of concrete filled steel tubular
sections (CFT/CFSt) under axial compression, Thin-Walled Struct. 80 (2014) 46–56.
[13] Q.X. Ren, L.H. Han, D. Lam, C. Hou, Experiments on special-shaped CFST stub col-
umns under axial compression, J. Constr. Steel Res. 98 (2014) 123–133.
[14] Eurocode 4, Design of composite steel and concrete structures-Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization,
2004 [EN 1994-1-1:2004].
[15] ACI318-14, Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary,
Detroit, USA: American Concrete Institute, 2014.
[16] ANSI/AISC360-10, Specification for structural steel buildings, Chicago, USA:
American Institute of Steel Construction, 2010.
[17] DBJ/T13-51-2010, Technical specification for concrete-filled steel tubular structures,
Fuzhou, China: The Construction Department of Fujian Province, 2010 [in Chinese].
[18] AIJ-2008, Recommendations for design and construction of concrete filled steel tu-
bular structures, In: Tokyo, Japan: Architectural Institute of Japan, 2008.
[19] M. Elchalakani, X.L. Zhao, R.H. Grzebieta, Concrete-filled circular steel tubes subject-
ed to pure bending, J. Constr. Steel Res. 57 (11) (2001) 1141–1168.
[20] L.H. Han, Flexural behaviour of concrete-filled steel tubes, J. Constr. Steel Res. 60 (2)
(2004) 313–337.
[21] L.H. Han, G.H. Yao, Z. Tao, Performance of concrete-filled thin-walled steel tubes
under pure torsion, Thin-Walled Struct. 45 (1) (2007) 24–36.
[22] J.B. Mander, M.J.N. Priestley, R. Park, Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete, ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 114 (8) (1988) 1804–1826.
[23] M.M. Attard, S. Setunge, Stress-strain relationship of confined and unconfined con-
crete, ACI Mater. J. 93 (5) (1996) 432–442.
[24] E. Ellobody, B. Young, Numerical simulation of concrete encased steel composite col-
umns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (2) (2011) 211–222.
[25] L.H. Han, G.H. Yao, Experimental behaviour of thin-walled hollow structural steel
(HSS) columns filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC), Thin-Walled Struct.
42 (9) (2004) 1357–1377.
[26] AISI-S100-2007, North American specification for the design of cold-formed
steel structural members, Washington, D.C., USA: American Iron and Steel Insti-
tute, 2007.