Structures 8 (2016) 213–226

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures

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

Design of Concrete Filled Tubular Beam-columns with High Strength

Steel and Concrete
J.Y. Richard Liew ⁎, Mingxiang Xiong, Dexin Xiong
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore

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

Article history: Concrete filled steel tubular column comprising a hollow steel tube infilled with concrete has been used widely in
Received 21 February 2016 high rise buildings. Although modern design codes provide guides on concrete filled steel tubular members,
Received in revised form 15 May 2016 they do not cover their applications involving high strength concrete and high tensile steel. Set against this
Accepted 16 May 2016
background, new tests have been conducted to supplement the dearth of research on concrete filled steel tubular
Available online 18 May 2016
members with ultra-high strength concrete (fck up to 190 N/mm2) and high tensile steel (fy up to 780 N/mm2). In
Keywords:
this paper, a design guide has been proposed for concrete filled steel tubular members based on an extension of
Concrete filled columns Eurocode 4 method for concrete compressive strength up to 190 N/mm2 and high tensile steel with yield strength
Eurocode steel design up to 550 N/mm2. More than 2030 test data collected from the literature on concrete filled steel tubes with nor-
High strength concrete mal and high strength materials have been analysed to formulate this design guide. This paper provides insights
High rise buildings to this design guide sharing some of the expertise and knowledge involving the applications of high strength con-
High tensile steel crete filled tubular members in high rise buildings.
Steel–concrete composite © 2016 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction cross-sections as shown in Fig. 1. Circular, square and rectangular

High strength construction materials are now attractive owing to
their economic and architectural advantages. The higher the material
strength, the smaller is the required member size. Floor space can be
saved and cost can be significantly reduced in high-rise construction.
However, material brittleness could be one of the problems for high
strength concrete and local buckling may be a problem for structural
members with high tensile steel. To overcome these problems, one
solution is to use composite structural members, especially concrete
filled steel tubes as columns, where the ductility and strength of the
concrete core can be enhanced by the confinement effect from the
steel tubes while the local buckling of the steel tube can be delayed or
even prevented by the concrete core.
Concrete filled steel tubular (CFST) column, comprising a hollow
steel tube infilled with concrete with or without additional reinforce-
ments or steel section, has been widely used in high rise building
construction. The main advantage of CFST column is that the local buck-
ling of the outer steel tube is delayed or even prevented by the concrete
core while the inner concrete core is confined by the steel tube provid-
ing enhancement in strength and ductility under high compressive load.
The steel tube can serve as permanent formwork for concrete casting
and thus it eliminates the need of additional work and leads to fast
track construction [1,2]. The CFST columns have various composite
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ceeljy@nus.edu.sg (J.Y.R. Liew).
sections are commonly adopted while polygonal or elliptical sections
also may be used for architectural and functional requirements. Con-
ventionally, only plain concrete is filled into the hollow steel sections.
Nowadays, the concrete core may be reinforced by fibres or steel bars
to enhance ductility and fire resistance of the column. For convenience,
the reinforcements can be replaced by an internal steel tube which can
provide higher confinement to the concrete core. Other steel sections,
such as solid steel section or H-section, can be inserted into the concrete
core to further enhance the compression resistance and thus reduce the
column size. For columns subjected to high flexural loading, concrete
filled double-tube sections can be used to increase the flexural stiffness
with less material used.
High strength materials may reduce the use of construction mate-
rials, thus reducing the use of water, energy and manpower in handling
such materials. High strength materials are mostly used for structural
components subjected to compression such as columns in high-rise
buildings. Fig. 2(a) shows the Petronas Tower in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, which is a 88-storey building utilising Grade 80 high strength
concrete for columns with outer diameter up to 2.4 m. The Sail at the
Marina Bay Singapore shown in Fig. 2(b) is a 70-storey residential build-
ing with a height of 245 m, also utilising Grade 80 high strength
concrete with column size about 2.0 m diameter. The Hong Kong Inter-
national Commerce Centre with 110 storeys and 480 m height was
constructed using Grade 90 concrete. WFC Shanghai, as shown in
Fig. 2(c), utilised Grade 450 steel plate of thickness up to 100 mm for
the composite columns. Part of the structure of the Tokyo Sky Tree
(Fig. 2(d)) in Japan was constructed using Grade 700 steel tubes.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2016.05.005
2352-0124/© 2016 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
214 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226

Fig. 1. Types of cross-section of CFST columns.

Fig. 2. High-rise construction utilising high strength steel and concrete.

 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226 215

Fig. 3. Concrete filled tubes for high-rise construction [4].

These are the strong evidences of using high strength steel and concrete
materials in modern construction.
Fig. 3 shows the construction of 50-storey high-rise buildings
utilising concrete filled tubular columns in which the largest column
diameter is about 1.5 m. If an ultra-high strength concrete C190
is used, the size of such columns can be reduced approximately by
half [3].
Recent breakthrough in application of high strength steel and
concrete was seen in the construction of Techno Station in Tokyo
Japan, as shown in Fig. 4. The building, which utilised concrete filled
tubes with 780 MPa high strength steel and 160 MPa ultra-high
strength concrete, was able to reduce the column dimension
from 800 mm (based on normal strength materials) to 500 mm. The
design was able to generate large workspace thus unlocking the
valuable space for commercial uses. Fig. 5 shows a recently completed
building using CFST columns in Japan which consists of office, hotel
and retailer space. The building of 187 m in height is considered to be
a high-rise building in Japan, which varies in span length at the fourth
floor and the 32nd floor. To overcome the challenge of the span chang-
ing floors, the CFST columns and mega trusses have been employed. The
CFST columns at lower storeys comprise of steel tubes of 780 N/mm2 in
tensile strength and concrete of 150 N/mm2 in compressive strength.

Fig. 4. Techno Station, Tokyo, Japan utilising Grade 160 concrete and Grade 780 [5]. Fig. 5. Office, retailer, hotel buildings, Tokyo.
216 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226

Table 2
Size grading of dry premixed cementitious materials for UHSC.

Sieve size (mm) 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075
Passing percentage (%) 100 80.9 64.5 49.0 38.7 28.9 9.5

about 495 MPa and 550 MPa. It was concluded that the EC4
underestimated the concentrically loaded columns by 1% but over-
estimated the eccentrically loaded columns by less than 5%. Portoles
et al. [16] tested slender CFSTs with ultra-high strength infill with
strength reaching 130 MPa. It was concluded that the EC4 method
could safely predict the resistance of the said slender CFSTs under
eccentric axial loads, and EC4 is less accurate for concentrically loaded
CFSTs.
Very limited tests on the CFST columns with high tensile steel can be
found in the literature. Uy [17] carried out an experimental investiga-
tion on the ultimate resistance of short CFSTs. The yield strength of
the steel was about 750 MPa and the cylinder compressive strength of
concrete was about 30 MPa. The comparison between test results and
EC4 predictions showed that the EC4 approach overestimated the
Fig. 6. Use of high strength steel in tall building construction.
ultimate resistance. Then Mohanad and Uy [18] tested 4 slender CFSTs
using 761 MPa high strength steel. As the CFSTs were susceptible to
The use of high strength steel has significant advantages for tall local buckling, the EC4 approach was not applicable, instead a modified
building construction, and their applications are beneficial for the analysis approach was proposed to determine the ultimate resistance.
construction of mega columns, out-rigger and belt truss system, transfer Long term durability and ductility are two important factors for
girders/trusses, king posts for basement and top-down construction as consideration to use high strength materials in high rise building
shown in Fig. 6. construction. The fact that the high tensile steel and high strength
Some experimental researches on CFST columns with high strength concrete materials have been used in countries having seismic activities
concrete were available in literature. For the static axial behaviour, Liu such as U.S.A, Japan, Korea and China indicates that the durability and
et al. [6,7] presented some tests on rectangular CFSTs involving high ductility issues of such materials could be resolved by research and
strength concrete in the range of cylinder strengths from 55 MPa to development of new materials subjecting them to cyclic tests and
106 MPa and steel yield strengths varying from 300 MPa to 550 MPa. advanced finite element analyses, and most importantly through strin-
It was shown that EC4 could provide accurate predictions on average gent control of material quality at the factory and at the site. As material
but with maximum underestimation up to 20% and overestimation up and manufacturing technology improve, it is believed that the use of
to 10%. Han et al. [8] tested 50 stub CFSTs with self-consolidating higher strength concrete and high strength steel materials will continue
concrete of cube strengths between 50 MPa and 90 MPa and steel to increase as wider applications are being sought in the construction of
yield strengths from 282 MPa to 404 MPa. The comparison showed modern cities.
that the EC4 overestimated the ultimate strength by 0.6% for circular This paper includes two parts of which the first part introduces some
sections and 2.7% for square sections. Lue et al. [9] reported tests new test results on the CFSTs using ultra-high strength concrete and
on 24 square CFSTs with concrete cylinder strengths between 29 MPa high tensile steel, and then a modified design method based on EC4 ap-
and 84 MPa and steel yield strength 380 MPa. It was revealed that proach is proposed for structural design of the said CFSTs in the second
the EC4 provided conservative predictions. Yu et al. [10] carried out an part. This study aims to raise the awareness while providing the proper
investigation on 28 thin-walled CFSTs employing self-consolidating
concrete with cube strength 121.6 MPa and steel yield strength
404 MPa. The results showed that the EC4 could provide conservative
predictions on ultimate resistance for circular sections but over- Table 3
Basic material properties of concrete.
estimated by 6% for square sections. For the static flexural behaviour,
Varma et al. [11] investigated some 110 MPa high strength concrete fck Ecm ρc
filled square tubes subject to axial load and monotonically increasing Series no. Batch no. Type (MPa) (GPa) vc kg/m3
flexural loading. The steel yield strengths varied from 269 MPa to
Series 1 S1B1 Plain UHSC 173.5 63 0.24 –
660 MPa. The moment resistance could be accurately predicted by the S1B2 UHSC + 1%SF 184.2 63 0.24 –
ACI provisions. Gho and Liu [12] studied the flexural behaviour of 12 Series 2 S2B1 NSC 51.6 28 0.20 2317
rectangular CFSTs with high strength concrete of cylinder strengths be- S2B2 Plain UHSC 185.1 66 0.23 2717
tween 56.3 MPa and 90.9 MPa and steel yield strengths from 409 MPa to S2B3 Plain UHSC 175.0 66 0.23 2704
S2B4 UHSC + 0.5%SF 193.3 67 0.25 2703
438 MPa. It was shown that EC4 underestimated the flexural strengths Series 3 S3B1 Plain UHSC 152.3 62 – 2651
by 11%. For the combined concentrically and eccentrically loaded S3B2 UHSC + 19%CA (10 mm) 157.2 58 – 2658
behaviour, Liu [13–15] performed tests on rectangular CFSTs subjected S3B3 UHSC + 38%CA (10 mm) 147.0 54 – 2646
to concentric and eccentric loading. The cylinder strengths of concrete S3B4 UHSC + 19%CA (20 mm) 164.1 58 – 2665
S3B5 UHSC + 38%CA (20 mm) 148.0 56 – 2653
were about 60 MPa and 90 MPa, and the steel yield strengths were

Table 4
Table 1
Basic properties of high tensile strength steel fibre.
Mix proportions of NSC.
d L fy Ea
Water Cement Sand Coarse aggregate
Water/cement (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) Code (mm) (mm) Aspect Ratio Specific gravity (MPa) (GPa) Coating

0.5 225 450 625 1005 SF 13/80 0.16 13 80 7.85 2300 200 Brass
 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226 217

Table 5
Hollow steel sections.

d or b t fy fu Ea
Max. d/t or b/t Section classification
Sections (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) d/t or b/t values from EC4 by EC3

CHS114.3 × 3.6 114.3 3.6 403 505 213 31.8 49.2 2

CHS114.3 × 6.3 114.3 6.3 428 519 209 18.1 49.4 1
CHS219.1 × 5 219.1 5 380 511 205 43.8 55.7 3
CHS219.1 × 10 219.1 10 381 509 212 21.9 55.5 1
SHS150 × 8a 150 8 779 846 200 18.8 28.6 1
SHS150 × 12a 150 12 756 825 199 12.5 29.0 1
CHS219.1 × 6.3 219.1 6.3 300 467 202 34.8 70.5 1
SHS150 × 12.5 150 12.5 446 565 201 12.0 37.7 1
SHS80 × 8a 80 8 779 846 200 10.0 28.6 1
a
For 6 mm-thick mild steel backing strip used in welded sections, fy = 325 MPa, fu = 467 MPa, and Ea = 201 GPa.

design methodology to use high strength materials in high-rise building
design.
2. Testing of CFST columns with high strength materials
2.1. High strength CFST short columns
Experimental investigations have been carried out on three series of
short CFST columns employing ultra-high strength concrete (UHSC)
and high tensile steel (HTS) under concentric compression. For Series
1 tests, 11 small scale specimens were prepared with trial tests on
UHSC infilled in S275 and S355 steel tubes under different loading
conditions. For Series 2 tests, 8 larger specimens were tested for further
verification with both of UHSC and normal strength concrete (NSC). For
Series 3 tests, 17 specimens were tested to evaluate the performance of
CFST columns in which 12 specimens used the UHSC and S700 steel
tubes and 5 specimens employed the UHSC and mild steel.
2.1.1. Material properties
For each batch of concrete, at least three cylinders of size 100 mm
(d) × 200 mm (h) were cast and cured at ambient temperature where
the relative humidity was approximately 85% and the room tempera-
ture was around 30 °C at daytime and 25 °C at night. The curing condi-
tion was the same with that for the composite specimens. They were
tested on the same days when the corresponding composite specimens
were tested to obtain the basic mechanical properties.
The NSC was made from ordinary Portland cement, sand, coarse
aggregates with maximum size 10 mm, and a proper volume of water.

Table 6
Configuration details and test results for short CFST specimens.

L fy fck Ntest,u
Series No. (mm) Steel sections (MPa) (MPa) λ δ (kN)

Series 1 S1-1-1(a) 250 CHS114.3 × 3.6 403 – 0.088 – 486

S1-1-2(a) 250 CHS114.3 × 6.3 428 – 0.094 – 1039
S1-1-2(b) 250 CHS114.3 × 6.3 428 – 0.094 – 990
S1-2-1(a) 210a CHS114.3 × 6.3 428 173.5 0.110 0.493 2866
S1-2-1(b) 210a CHS114.3 × 6.3 428 173.5 0.110 0.493 2595
S1-3-1(a) 250 CHS114.3 × 3.6 403 173.5 0.142 0.326 2422
S1-3-1(b) 250 CHS114.3 × 3.6 403 173.5 0.142 0.326 2340
S1-3-2(a) 250 CHS114.3 × 3.6 403 184.2 0.145 0.313 2497
S1-3-2(b) 250 CHS114.3 × 3.6 403 184.2 0.145 0.313 2314
S1-3-3(a) 250 CHS114.3 × 6.3 428 173.5 0.131 0.493 2610
S1-3-3(b) 250 CHS114.3 × 6.3 428 173.5 0.131 0.493 2633
Series 2 S2-1-1 600 CHS219.1 × 5 380 – 0.109 – 1190
S2-1-2 600 CHS219.1 × 5 380 51.6 0.142 0.520 3118
S2-1-3 600 CHS219.1 × 5 380 185.1 0.191 0.232 7837
S2-1-4 600 CHS219.1 × 5 380 193.3 0.193 0.224 8664
S2-2-1 600 CHS219.1 × 10 381 – 0.109 – 3050
S2-2-2 600 CHS219.1 × 10 381 51.6 0.130 0.700 5241
S2-2-3 600 CHS219.1 × 10 381 185.1 0.168 0.394 9085
S2-2-4 600 CHS219.1 × 10 381 193.3 0.170 0.384 9187
Series 3 S3-1-1 450 SHS150 × 8 779 152.3 0.173 0.688 6536
S3-1-2 450 SHS150 × 8 779 157.2 0.175 0.682 6715
S3-1-3 450 SHS150 × 8 779 147.0 0.174 0.696 6616
S3-1-4 450 SHS150 × 8 779 164.1 0.177 0.672 7276
S3-1-5 450 SHS150 × 8 779 148.0 0.174 0.695 6974
S3-1-6 450 SHS150 × 8 779 – 0.150 – 3695
S3-2-1 450 SHS150 × 12 756 152.3 0.171 0.777 8585
S3-2-2 450 SHS150 × 12 756 157.2 0.173 0.771 8452
S3-2-3 450 SHS150 × 12 756 147.0 0.172 0.783 8687
S3-2-4 450 SHS150 × 12 756 164.1 0.174 0.764 8730
S3-2-5 450 SHS150 × 12 756 148.0 0.172 0.782 8912
S3-2-6 450 SHS150 × 12 756 – 0.154 – 6456
S3-3-1 450 SHS150 × 12.5 446 152.3 0.149 0.655 5953
S3-3-2 450 SHS150 × 12.5 446 157.2 0.151 0.648 5911
S3-3-3 450 SHS150 × 12.5 446 147.0 0.150 0.663 6039
S3-3-4 450 SHS150 × 12.5 446 164.1 0.153 0.638 6409
S3-3-5 450 SHS150 × 12.5 446 148.0 0.150 0.662 6285
a
Loaded only on the concrete core which was 210 mm in height; the steel tubes were 250 mm in height.
218 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226

Fig. 7. Test set-up and instrumentations.

The mix proportion design is shown in Table 1. The ultrahigh strength dry premixed material. The suggested water to premixed material
concrete (UHSC) was prepared from the dry premixed cementitious ratio of 0.076 by weight was adopted in this study. To further enhance
material which is one of the commercial available products in Europe. the basic performance of UHSC, optional compositions such as steel
It is a type of ultra-high-performance cement-based material made fibre and polymer fibres can be added to improve the tensile strength
from cementitious mineral powder, HRWRA, and fine mineral aggre- and ductility of UHSC.
gates (bauxite). Sieve analysis was conducted to check the size grading For Series 1 tests, two UHSC mix proportion designs were used. One
details. The test results are shown in Table 2. The maximum grain size is of the specimens was filled with plain UHSC and the other was filled
less than 4.75 mm (0.19 in.), and 49% is less than 0.6 mm (0.02 in.) on with UHSC reinforced with 1% high tensile strength steel fibres in
average. Because the necessary compositions are all included in the volume as shown in Table 3. The steel fibres, with basic properties
proprietary material, UHSC can be produced by mixing water with the shown in Table 4, was meant to improve strength and ductility of the
UHSC. For series 2 tests, one batch of NSC and three batches of UHSC
were prepared. One of the UHSC batches was added with 0.5% steel
Table 7 fibres. For Series 3 tests, five mix proportion designs as shown in
Comparisons for hollow steel sections.
Table 3 were used. Different proportions of ordinary granite coarse
Specimen Ntest,u Npl,Rk aggregates were added to reduce the cost without significant loss of
no. Sections (kN) (kN) Ntest,u/Npl,Rk strength. The mechanical properties for each batch of concrete are
S1-1-1(a) CHS114.3 × 3.6 486 505 0.963 summarized in Table 4.
S1-1-2(a) CHS114.3 × 6.3 1039 915 1.136 The steel sections used in this study include five hot finished circular
S1-1-2(b) 990 915 1.082
hollow mild steel sections, one hot finished square hollow mild steel
S2-1-1 CHS219.1 × 5 1190 1278 0.931
S2-2-1 CHS219.1 × 10 3050 2503 1.219 sections, and three welded square HTS sections. For each type of steel
S3-1-6 SHS150 × 8 3695 3828 0.965 sections, at least three coupon samples were tested. The mechanical
S3-2-6 SHS150 × 12 6456 5296 1.219 properties of the steel tubes are shown in Table 5, where the sections
Mean 1.074 are classified according to EC 3 [19] and the maximum d/t or b/t values
Standard deviation 0.123
are calculated based on EC 4 [20]. It is worth noting that one of the tubes
 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226 219

Table 8
Comparison of test results with predictions for infilled circular steel tube columns.

Ntest,u Npl,Rk Npl,Rk2

No. (kN) (kN) (kN) Ntest,u/Npl,Rk Mean StDev Ntest,u/Npl,Rk2 Mean StDev

(a) NSC filled tube specimens

S2-1-2 3118 3050 3601 1.022 1.149 0.179 0.866 0.942 0.107
S2-2-2 5241 4109 5155 1.275 1.017

(b) UHSC filled tube specimens

S1-2-1(a) 2866 2324 2733 1.233 1.119 0.053 1.049 1.007 0.039
S1-2-1(b) 2595 2324 2733 1.117 0.949
S1-3-1(a) 2422 2068 2277 1.172 1.064
S1-3-1(b) 2340 2068 2277 1.132 1.028
S1-3-2(a) 2497 2164 2369 1.154 1.054
S1-3-2(b) 2314 2164 2369 1.069 0.977
S1-3-3(a) 2610 2324 2685 1.123 0.972
S1-3-3(b) 2633 2324 2685 1.133 0.980
S2-1-3 7837 7634 8030 1.027 0.976
S2-1-4 8664 7916 8303 1.094 1.043
S2-2-3 9085 8266 9080 1.099 1.001
S2-2-4 9187 8521 9323 1.078 0.985

falls in Class 3 according to EC 3 but is still allowed to be used in compos- only on the concrete cores (Fig. 7(a)) and all the other specimens
ite sections according to EC 4. The square sections were fabricated from were loaded simultaneously on both the steel tubes and concrete cores.
HTS plates with thickness 8 mm and 12 mm. The stress–strain curves for
high tensile steel has no yielding plateau and therefore, 0.2% proof stress 2.1.4. Test results and comparisons with Eurocode prediction
[21] was taken as the yield strength which was 779 N/mm2. For all the specimens, the testing values of the ultimate resistance,
Ntest,u, are summarized in Table 7. The test values of ultimate resistance
are compared with EC 4 predictions Npl,Rk by simply extending the
2.1.2. Short CFST column specimens
limitations on materials to the UHSC and HTS used in this study. For
The CFST column specimens in Series 1, 2 and 3 tests are shown in
the 7 hollow steel tube specimens, the comparisons are shown in
Table 6 where λ is the relative slenderness and δ is the steel contribution
Table 7. The first five are circular hollow steel tube columns with mild
ratio as defined in EC 4. The overall buckling of these specimens under
steel sections and the other two are square hollow steel tube columns
compression can be ignored since all the values of relative slenderness
with HTS sections. The ratio of test result to prediction ranges from
are less than 0.2. All the values of steel contribution ratio are in the
0.931 to 1.219, with a mean value of 1.074 and a standard deviation
range from 0.2 to 0.9 as limited in EC 4.
value of 0.123. Specimens with Class 1 sections have higher safety
margins. For the specimen S2-1-1 with a Class 3 section according to
2.1.3. Test set-up and instrumentations EC 3, the prediction is overestimated approximately by 7%.
The strain values at the middle height specimen were monitored by For the two NSC filled circular steel tube specimens, the comparisons
four post yielding gauges which were placed at 90° apart and fixed to are shown in Table 8(a) where the EC 4 predictions without and with
outer surface of the steel tube. Each strain gauge consists of two compo- confinement effect, Npl,Rk and Npl,Rk2, are shown. Without confinement
nents: one aligned in the longitudinal direction and the other in the effect, all the predictions are conservative, especially for the specimen
circumferential direction. The axial shortening were measured by four S2-2-2 with Class 1 steel sections which are underestimated by 28%. If
linear varying displacement transducers (LVDTs) which were also the confinement effect is considered, the prediction is overestimated
placed at 90° apart. The test set-up and instrumentations are shown in by up to 13% for the specimen S2-1-2 with a Class 3 steel section. There-
Fig. 7. Two specimens, S1-2-1(a) and S1-2-1(b), were axially loaded fore, care should be taken for the use of increase of concrete strength
due to confinement when the NSC is infilled in Class 3 steel tubes.
For all 12 the UHSC filled circular specimens, the comparisons are
Table 9
shown in Table 8(b). It can be observed that the ratio of test result to
Comparison of test results with predictions for infilled square steel tube specimens.
prediction ranges from 1.027 to 1.233 with a mean value of 1.119 and
Ntest,u Npl,Rk a standard deviation value of 0.053 if the confinement effect is not
No. (kN) (kN) Ntest,u/Npl,Rk Mean StDev
considered. It ranges from 0.949 to 1.064 with a mean value of 1.007
(a) UHSC filled specimens with mild steel tubes and a standard deviation value of 0.039, if the confinement effect is con-
S3-3-1 5953 5351 1.113 1.139 0.039 sidered. Without confinement effect, all the predictions are on the
S3-3-2 5911 5427 1.089
S3-3-3 6039 5269 1.146
conservative side with an average safety margin of more than 10%.
S3-3-4 6409 5534 1.158 However, if the confinement effect is considered, the resistance of 50%
S3-3-5 6285 5284 1.189 test specimens is overestimated by EC 4 but it is within 5%. It is worth
(b) UHSC filled specimens with welded HTS steel tubes
noting that, for CFST columns with UHSC tested in this study, the ulti-
S3-1-1 6536 6428 1.017 1.099 0.055 mate resistance was achieved at a rather small deformation before
S3-1-2 6715 6511 1.031 significant confinement effect had been developed due to the brittle-
S3-1-3 6616 6337 1.044 ness of the UHSC. Considering this, the EC 4 method should not be
S3-1-4 7276 6629 1.097
extended to the UHSC for circular CFST columns unless the concrete
S3-1-5 6974 6354 1.097
S3-2-1 8585 7579 1.133 confinement effect is ignored.
S3-2-2 8452 7652 1.105 For all the 5 UHSC filled square specimens with mild steel sections,
S3-2-3 8687 7500 1.158 the comparisons are shown in Table 9(a). The ratio of test result to
S3-2-4 8730 7756 1.126 prediction ranges from 1.089 to 1.189 with a mean value of 1.139
S3-2-5 8912 7515 1.186
and a standard deviation value of 0.039. All the predictions are
220 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226

Table 10
Configuration details of CFST beam-column specimens.

fy fu Ea fck Ecm e0 L
No. Steel section(s) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (GPa) (mm) (mm) λ

CS-1 CHS219.1 × 16 374 551 202 186 68 0 4195 1.100

CS-2 CHS219.1 × 16 374 551 202 181 68 20 3640 0.947
CS-3 CHS219.1 × 16 374 551 202 176 68 50 3640 0.940
CS-4 CHS273 × 10 412 521 204 180 68 0 4195 0.987
CS-5 CHS273 × 10 412 521 204 184 68 50 4450 1.055
CS-6 CHS273 × 16 401 522 203 180 68 50 4450 0.971
SS-1 SHS200 × 12.5 465 559 206 183 68 20 3640 0.968
SS-2 SHS200 × 12a 756 825 199 176 68 20 3640 1.057
SS-3 SHS200 × 12a 756 825 199 177 68 50 3640 1.058
a
For 6 mm-thick mild steel backing strip used in welded sections, fy = 325 MPa, fu = 467 MPa, and Ea = 201 GPa.

underestimated with an average safety margin of 14%. Therefore, the EC
4 limitation on concrete strength could be safely extended to the UHSC
for square CFST columns with mild steel sections. For all the 10 UHSC
filled square specimens with HTS sections, the comparisons are shown
in Table 9(b). The ratio of test result to prediction ranges from 1.017
to 1.186 with a mean value of 1.099 and a standard deviation value of
0.055. All the predictions are underestimated with an average safety
margin of 10%. Therefore, the EC 4 limitations on materials could be
safely extended to UHSC and HTS for square CFST columns.
2.2. Tests on high strength CFST beam-columns
2.2.1. Materials and specimen details
There were 9 slender CFST beam-column specimens of which 6 were
circular sections (CS) and 3 were square sections (SS). The column
details are shown in Table 10, where e0 is the load eccentricity to
apply an end moment, Neo, to the column, and L is the effective length
between the centres of the end roller supports, as shown in Fig. 3a.
Same UHSC material, as described in Section 2.2.1, was used. During
casting, the fresh concrete was pumped into CFST specimens from the
bottom. For each composite CFST specimen, at least three cylinders of
size 100 mm (d) × 200 mm (h) were cast and cured at the same
ambient temperature as the column specimens. They were tested at
the same time when the corresponding column specimen was tested
to obtain the mechanical properties as shown in Table 10.
The steel sections include 6 hot finished circular hollow mild steel
sections, one hot finished square hollow mild steel section, and two
welded square hollow HTS sections. All the sections are Class 1 sections
according to EC 3. For the S700 high strength steel plate, there was no
yielding plateau in the stress–strain curve, and thus 0.2% proof
stress = 756 N/mm2 was taken as the yield strength. For each type of
hot finished steel sections and high tensile strength steel plates, at
least three coupon samples were tested to obtain the basic mechanical
properties as shown in Table 10.
2.2.2. Test set-up and loading procedure
Four post yield strain gauges, placed at 90° apart, were attached to
the outer surface of steel tube at the mid-height of the specimen, as
shown in Fig. 8. The deflection at middle height was measured by two
LVDTs at opposite positions. In addition, LVDTs were installed to
measure the lateral deflection at one-fourth height and the vertical dis-
placement at the column top. A quasi-static loading procedure was
introduced by displacement control method in four steps: (1) preload
the specimen at a rate of 0.5 mm/min up to 10% of its resistance

Fig. 8. Test set-up and instrumentation.

 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226 221

Table 11 Table 13
Test results and Eurocode 4 predictions for concentrically loaded specimens. Limitation on characteristic strength (N/mm2) in modern design codes.

No. Ntest (kN) Nu (kN) Ntest/Nu Steel yield Concrete cylinder

Codes strength (N/mm2) strength (N/mm2)
CS-1 6324 5321 1.188
CS-4 8592 8403 1.022 ANSI/AISC 360-10:2010 ≤525 21–70
GB 50936:2014 235–420 25–67
Architectural Institute 235–440 18–90
of Japan [24]
estimated by EC 4 approach, (2) unload at a rate of 1.0 mm/min, (3) re-
EN 1992-1-1:2004 N.A. 12–90
load at the rate of 0.5 mm/min up to 70%–80% of its estimated resis- EN 1993-1-1:2005 235–700 N.A.
tance, then change the rate down to 0.3 mm/min until the load is EN 1993-1-12:2005
lower than 80% the peak load, and (4) unload at a rate of 1.0 mm/min. EN 1994-1-1:2004 235–460 20–50

2.2.3. Evaluation of test results

The test results Ntest were compared with EC 4 predictions Nu by
simply extending the limitations on materials to the UHSC and HTS
used in this study. The test values of ultimate resistance are compared
with EC 4 predictions as shown in Table 11 for concentrically loaded
specimens and Table 12 for eccentrically compressed specimens. For
concentrically loaded specimens, the EC 4 method gave conservative
predictions compared to the test results. For eccentrically loaded speci-
mens, the predictions from Eurocode 4 were calculated based on an ini-
tial imperfection of ei = L/300. According to EC 4, the coefficient αM
should be taken as 0.9 for S235 and S355 steel inclusive and 0.8 for
steel grades S420 and S460. From Table 12, it can be observed that the
ratio of Ntest/Nu ranges from 1.078 to 1.349 with an average value of
1.180 and a standard deviation value of 0.096 if αM is taken as 0.8,
while the ratio ranges from 1.024 to 1.241 with an average value of
1.112 and a standard deviation value of 0.086 if αM = 0.9. Therefore,
EC4 predictions with αM = 0.8 are very conservative when compared
to the test results.
It is worth noting that, by taking αM as 1.0 for eccentrically com-
pressed specimens, the ratio of Ntest/Nu ranges from 0.979 to 1.188
with an average value of 1.058 and a standard deviation value of
0.082. Only two specimens are overestimated by less than 3%. Therefore,
the full plastic moment resistance could be used for CFST beam-
columns.
3. Design guide for high strength CFST columns
3.1. General
Table 13 show the material strength limitation of various design
codes for composite columns. EC 4 [20] is applicable to composite
columns with normal weight concrete of strength classes C20/25 to
C50/60 and steel grades S235 to S460. AISC 360-10 [22] only applies to
composite columns with normal weight concrete cylinder strength from
21 N/mm2 to 70 N/mm2 and steel yield strength up to 525 N/mm2.
The Chinese Code [23] only applies to composite columns with con-
crete cylinder strength from 25 N/mm2 to 67 N/mm2 and steel yield
strength from 235 N/mm2 to 420 N/mm2. Finally the Japanese Code
[24] allows the use of high strength concrete with compression
strength up to 90 N/mm2. Composite structural members generally
Table 12
Test results and Eurocode 4 predictions for eccentrically loaded specimens.
αM = 0.8 αM = 0.9 αM = 1.0
exhibit better ductility and higher buckling resistance compared
with individual steel or reinforced concrete members. However, EC
4 [20] gives narrower range of material strength for steel and con-
crete compared with EC 2 [25] for concrete structural design and
EC 3 [19,26] for steel structural design.
The design guide proposed by Liew and Xiong [27] fills the gap by
allowing the design of CFST columns with concrete cylinder strength
up to 90 N/mm2 and steel of yield strength up to 550 N/mm2. The design
is based on EC 4 [20,28] for the design of CFST columns with special con-
siderations for the high strength concrete and the high tensile steel. The
design method was calibrated against the test data collected worldwide.
The following sections expand the investigation work and explore how
the design guide can be further extended for the steel tubular columns
infilled with ultra-high strength concrete.
3.2. Test database
3.2.1. Overview
The test database expands the work of Goode [29] to include 2033
test results on CFST columns with additional test data on CFST columns
with ultra-high strength concrete reported in Section 2 and elsewhere
[3]. The new test data includes steel tubes infilled with ultra-high
strength concrete with cylinder compressive strength greater than
90 N/mm2. Test specimens involving short and long CFST members sub-
jected to compression, uniaxial bending, and bi-axial bending, are cate-
gorized for comparison with EC 4 predictions. Tests on encased
columns, columns with stainless steel and aluminium steel sections
are excluded. Tests involving preload effect, sustained loading for
creep and shrinkage studies and dynamic loadings are not included. In
addition, CFST columns with Class 4 slender sections, in which the d/t
ratio exceeds the class 3 limit stipulated in EC 4 [20], are also excluded
although they were included originally in Goode's database. In this
database, the concrete compressive cylinder strength is in the range be-
tween 8.5 N/mm2 to 243 N/mm2, and the steel yield strength ranges
from 178 N/mm2 to 853 N/mm2. The ratio of column height over section
smaller dimension is between 0.67 and 60, and the relative slenderness
λ ranges from 0.02 to 1.30 which is within the limit of EC 4.
3.2.2. Influence of concrete strength
The average test/prediction ratios against concrete cylinder strength
are shown in Table 14. The ratios are categorized into three groups
based on concrete strength. By studying the values which are not brack-
eted, the average test/EC 4 value for each type of CFST specimens is

No. Ntest (kN) Nu (kN) Ntest/Nu Nu (kN) Ntest/Nu Nu (kN) Ntest/Nu

CS-2 4389 4070 1.078 4288 1.024 4484 0.979 Table 14

CS-3 3246 2861 1.135 3063 1.060 3249 0.999 Effective compressive strength and modified secant modulus of high strength concrete.
CS-5 5083 3767 1.349 4096 1.241 4395 1.156
Strength classes C55/67 C60/75 C70/85 C80/95 C90/105
CS-6 5284 4698 1.125 4999 1.057 5274 1.002
SS-1 5187 4612 1.125 4844 1.071 5051 1.027 Effective compressive strength 54 57 63 68 72
SS-2 7136 5624 1.269 5828 1.225 6005 1.188 (N/mm2)
SS-3 4997 4247 1.177 4507 1.109 4742 1.054 Reduction ratio 2.5% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
Mean value 1.180 1.112 1.058 Modified secant modulus (N/mm2) 38.0 38.6 39.6 40.4 41.1
Standard deviation 0.096 0.086 0.082 Reduction ratio 0.7% 1.3% 2.8% 4.3% 5.9%
222 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226

Table 15
Influence of concrete strength on test/EC 4 prediction ratios for CFST columns.

Type of column Compressive cylinder strength of concrete

≤50 N/mm2 ≤90 N/mm2 N90 N/mm2

Axially loaded circular cross section Nos. 295 130 44

Test/EC4 ≥ 1 66.8% (99.3%) 59.2% [66.9%]{97.7%} 47.7% b100%N|100%|
Av. 1.068 (1.355) 1.023 [1.062]{1.383} 1.016 b1.298N|1.646|
St. Dev. 0.136 (0.169) 0.111 [0.132]{0.190} 0.104 b0.139N|0.153|
Axially loaded circular column Nos. 383 60 22
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 85.9% (97.4%) 68.3% [83.3%]{98.3} 81.8% b100%N|100%|
Av. 1.186 (1.388) 1.039 [1.075]{1.339} 1.085 b1.195N|1.512|
St. Dev. 0.246 (0.267) 0.110 [0.121]{0.162} 0.095 b0.093N|0.157|
Circular beam-column Nos. 240 66 46
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 82.1% (98.8%) 71.2% [81.8%]{98.5%} 69.6% b78.3%N|91.3%|
Av. 1.192 (1.352) 1.086 [1.136]{1.356} 1.008 b1.121N|1.378|
St. Dev. 0.217 (0.237) 0.182 [0.189]{0.216} 0.172 b0.205N|0.266|
Axially loaded rectangular cross section Nos. 282 63 39
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 80.1% (99.6%) 68.3% [90.5%]{96.8%} 56.4% b89.7%]|100%|
Av. 1.122 (1.287) 1.068 [1.118]{1.330} 1.032 b1.136N|1.321|
St. Dev. 0.150 (0.196) 0.123 [0.117]{0.168} 0.093 b0.099N|0.132|
Axially loaded rectangular column Nos. 101 40 12
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 62.4% (94.1%) 70.0% [77.5%]{95.0%} 58.3% b91.7%N|100%|
Av. 1.059 (1.220) 1.057 [1.099]{1.321} 1.095 b1.212N|1.458|
St. Dev. 0.140 (0.172) 0.134 [0.140]{0.177} 0.206 b0.193N|0.233|
Rectangular beam-column Nos. 160 23 27
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 73.1% (98.1%) 87.0% [87.0%]{100%} 70.4% b85.2%N|100%|
Av. 1.107 (1.338) 1.099 [1.128]{1.461} 1.044 b1.089N|1.314|
St. Dev. 0.279 (0.341) 0.112 [0.102]{0.148} 0.115 b0.117N|0.124|
All test data Nos. 1461 382 190
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 77.3% (98.3%) 67.0% [78.3%]{97.6%} 62.6% b90.0%N|97.9%|
Av. 1.133 (1.339) 1.052 [1.094]{1.361} 1.034 b1.175N|1.440|
St. Dev. 0.210 (0.240) 0.132 [0.141]{0.186} 0.132 b0.165N|0.224|

Notes:
For the value1, (value2), [value3], {value4}, bvalue5N and |value6| in the table, value1 is based on the characteristic strengths of steel and concrete; (value2) is based on design strengths;
[value3] is based on characteristic strengths with reduction factor η for concrete; {value4} is based on design strengths with reduction factor η for concrete. bvalue5N is based on charac-
teristic strengths with reduction factor η and neglect of confinement for concrete; |value6| is based on design strengths with reduction factor η and neglect of confinement for concrete.
The design partial factor is 1.5 and 1.0 for concrete and steel, respectively. This table does NOT include test specimens with class 4 section as in EC4. Av. = Average value; St.Dev. =
Standard Deviation.

greater than unity indicating a conservative average prediction by EC 4, counterparts with normal strength concrete. This reflects the increasing
both for normal and high strength concretes. Table 14 also provides the complexity and severity as the concrete strength increases. To allow for
percentage of conservative prediction (i.e., test/EC 4 prediction ≥ 1.0) this in design, the effective compressive strength of concrete is adopted
which reflects the reliability of the prediction by EC 4. For high strength in accordance with EC 2 [25] for high strength concrete and ultra-high
concrete (50 N/mm2 b fck ≤ 90 N/mm2), the percentages of all circular strength concrete. The effective strength is determined by multiplying
columns and the axially loaded rectangular cross sections are lower a reduction factor η with the concrete strength given as:
than those of their counterparts with normal strength concrete 
(fck ≤ 50 N/mm2). For ultra-high strength concrete (fck N 90 N/mm2), 1:0−ð f ck −50Þ=200 50 N=mm2 bf ck ≤90 N=mm2
η¼ ð1Þ
the percentages of all columns are lower than those of their 0:8 f ck N90 N=mm2

Fig. 9. Comparison of test/EC4 prediction ratio against concrete strength.

 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226 223

Table 16
Influence of steel strength on test/EC4 prediction ratios for CFST columns.

Yield strength of steel

Types of column ≤460 N/mm2 ≤550 N/mm2 N550 N/mm2

Axially loaded circular cross section Nos. 450 5 14

Test/EC4 ≥ 1 71.6% (99.6%) 40.0% (40.0%) 28.6% (100%)
Av. 1.093 (1.399) 0.922 (1.133) 0.975 (1.180)
St. Dev. 0.150 (0.189) 0.200 (0.215) 0.068 (0.081)
Axially loaded circular column Nos. 414 38 13
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 85.7% (97.6%) 89.5% (100%) 92.3% (92.3%)
Av. 1.152 (1.378) 1.399 (1.532) 1.160 (1.270)
St. Dev. 0.167 (0.210) 0.544 (0.526) 0.112 (0.122)
Circular beam-column Nos. 346 6 –
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 82.4% (98.0%) 33.3% (83.3%) –
Av. 1.175 (1.356) 1.032 (1.367) –
St. Dev. 0.211 (0.236) 0.213 (0.268) –
Axially loaded rectangular cross section Nos. 308 21 55
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 84.7% (99.0%) 100% (100%) 65.5% (100%)
Av. 1.135 (1.324) 1.132 (1.310) 1.048 (1.146)
St. Dev. 0.147 (0.189) 0.071 (0.096) 0.089 (0.117)
Axially loaded rectangular column Nos. 145 8 –
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 67.6% (95.2%) 87.5% (87.5%) –
Av. 1.078 (1.262) 1.152 (1.328) –
St. Dev. 0.141 (0.181) 0.267 (0.331) –
Rectangular beam-column Nos. 187 8 15
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 73.8% (98.4%) 87.5% (100%) 100% (100%)
Av. 1.099 (1.338) 1.061 (1.385) 1.221 (1.459)
St. Dev. 0.255 (0.319) 0.071 (0.119) 0.219 (0.168)
All test data Nos. 1850 86 97
Test/EC4 ≥ 1 78.9% (98.3%) 84.9% (94.2%) 69.1% (99.0%)
Av. 1.128 (1.357) 1.226 (1.410) 1.079 (1.216)
St. Dev. 0.181 (0.222) 0.409 (0.395) 0.141 (0.165)

Notes:
For the value1, (value2) in the table, value1 is based on characteristic strengths of steel and concrete; (value2) is based on design strengths. For concrete with fck N 50 N/mm2, the reduction
factor η is considered for the concrete compressive strength and the secant modulus of concrete is modified accordingly. For concrete with fck N 90 N/mm2, confinement effect is ignored.
The design partial factor is 1.5 and 1.0 for concrete and steel, respectively. This table does NOT include test specimens with class 4 section as in EC4. Av. = Average value; St.Dev. =
Standard Deviation.

For ultra-high strength concrete with fck N 90 N/mm2, it is
recommended that η = 0.8 should be adopted and the increase of
concrete strength due to confinement effect from steel tube should be
ignored. With the introduction of reduction factor η, the effective
compressive strengths are given in Table 14 for various high strength
concrete classes. Accordingly, the secant modulus for high and ultra-
high strength concrete should be modified based on the effective
strength as:
0:3
Ecm ¼ 22½ðη  f ck þ 8Þ=10
The percentage of reduction in the secant modulus for high strength
concrete is less as compared to the compressive strength as shown in
Table 14.
The predictions of CFST members using EC4 based on the effective
strength and modified secant modulus are given in Table 15 where
values are in the brackets [] and bN. It is found that the percentages of
all columns with high strength and ultra-high strength concretes are
comparable with those of their counterparts with normal strength
concrete. The comparable reliability with normal strength concrete
ð2Þ has been achieved for high strength concrete and ultra-high strength

Fig. 10. Comparison of test/EC4 prediction ratio against steel strength.

224 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226

Table 17 120 N/mm2 to 150 N/mm2. Alternatively, the use of ultra-high strength
Compatibility between steel and concrete materials for CFST columns. concrete for CFST column is made possible if a condition on the strain
S235 S275 S355 S420 S460 S500 S550 compatibility between steel and concrete material is observed as
C12/15 √ √ √ × × × ×
described in Section 3.3.
C16/20 √ √ √ × × × ×
C20/25 √ √ √ × × × × 3.2.3. Influence of steel strength
C25/30 √ √ √ √ × × × The average test/prediction ratios against steel yield strength are
C30/37 √ √ √ √ × × ×
shown in Table 16. All the values are based on the reduction factor η
C35/45 √ √ √ √ √ × ×
C40/50 √ √ √ √ √ × × in Eq. (1) and the neglect of confinement for ultra-high strength
C45/55 √ √ √ √ √ √ × concrete. The ratios are categorized into three groups based on steel
C50/60 √ √ √ √ √ √ × strength. It is observed that the average ratio of test/EC4 prediction for
C55/67 √ √ √ √ √ √ × each type of column with mild steel (fy ≤ 460 N/mm2) is greater than
C60/75 √ √ √ √ √ √ ×
C70/85 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
unity. However, this is not true for columns with high tensile steel
C80/95 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ (fy N 460 N/mm2). This might be due to the lack of test data. Thus for
C90/105 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ the use of CFST columns with steel strength fy N 460 N/mm2, the reliabil-
C110/− √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ity of the proposed method needs to be further investigated.
C130/− √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Table 16 also gives the percent of test/EC4 prediction N 1.0 and the
C150/− √ √ √ √ √ √ √
C170/− √ √ √ √ √ √ √ average prediction of all test data in terms of steel yield strength. The
C190/− √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ratios between test and design prediction are also provided. The average
Notes: “√” indicates compatible materials and “×” is not recommended.
test/EC4 prediction ratio for CFST with high tensile steel is higher than
those with mild steel, but the standard deviation is higher indicating
that wide scattering of results are observed for test specimens involving
concrete with the introduction of concrete strength reduction factor η in the use of high tensile steel. When the codes specified design values are
Eq. (1) and by neglecting the confinement effect for ultra-high strength compared with the test results, the percentage of under-prediction
concrete. Hence, the modified EC4 method can be extended to CFST (i.e., test/EC4 prediction b 1.0) is less than 5%, although the average
columns with higher concrete strength. ratio is higher than those with mild steel.
Table 15 gives the percentages for all the test data in terms of The Test/EC4 ratios are also plotted in Fig. 10. It is observed that
concrete strength. Overall, the percentage decreases with increasing more than 90% test data are from CFST columns with mild steels.
concrete strength (refer to values not in the brackets). Considering the The test data is insufficient to establish the validity of using the
reduction factor η and ignoring the concrete confinement effect, the high tensile steels according to EC 4. The following section provides
percentages of Test/EC4 prediction ≥ 1.0 of high strength concrete and additional guideline to limit the use of high tensile steel by selecting
ultra-high strength concrete are higher than those of their counterparts matching grades of steel and concrete materials for composite
with normal strength concrete. The design values (refer to values in (), construction.
{} and ||) are also provided in Table 15 with the introduction of partial
factors of 1.5 and 1.0 for concrete and steel, respectively. When the 3.3. Strain compatibility between steel and concrete
codes specified design values are compared with the test results, the
percentages of under-prediction (i.e., test/EC4 prediction b 1.0) are For high strength concrete filled steel tubular columns subjected to
less than 3%. compression, it is necessary to ensure that yielding of the steel section
The Test/EC4 ratios are plotted in Fig. 9, with the effective strength occurs before the concrete core reaches its maximum stress. Otherwise,
and modified modulus of elasticity applied for concrete with compres- the full plastic resistance of the composite section cannot be achieved
sive strength higher than 50 N/mm2. Most data lies close to unity, due to brittle failure of high strength concrete after reaching the
except one data showing a rather high test/EC4 value (=3.39, charac- maximum stress. Hence, the selections of steel grade and concrete
teristic value). This data was taken from tests by Assi et al. [30]. The class have to ensure that the yield strain of steel is smaller than the com-
test/prediction ratio was given as 1.98 in Ref. [30], implying there pressive strain of concrete at the peak stress. The yield strain of steel and
might be problem in this test. There is also difference between the the strain of concrete at peak stress may be calculated in accordance
authors' prediction and the prediction in Ref. [30], but it remains with EC 2 [25] and EC 3 [19] as:
unknown. Fig. 9 shows that, in order to further extend the EC4 scope Steel yield strain:
to include the ultra-high strength concrete, more test data could be
done for CFST columns with concrete compressive strength between ε y ¼ f y =Ea ð3Þ

Fig. 11. CFST column for case study and illustration for M–N interaction curve.
 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226
Fig. 12. Comparison between CFSTs with varying concrete strength.
Concrete strain at peak stress (‰):
0:31
εc1 ¼ 0:7 f cm ð4Þ
where fcm = fck + 8 is the mean compressive strength of concrete at
28 days, in N/mm2. Ea = 210,000 N/mm2 is the elastic modulus of
steel tube. It is noted that the calculation for the strain of concrete at
peak stress ignores the confinement effect from the steel tubes. Steel
with yield strength greater than 550 N/mm2 may be used provided
that a more accurate assessment on the concrete strain at peak stress,
considering the tri-axial confinement effect from the steel tube, is
carried out.
Table 17 gives the recommendation on the matching grades of steel
and concrete suitable for use in CFST columns. This is based on the
condition εy b εcl and the experimental observations on the new test
data presented in Section 2 of this paper. It is recommended that the
steel tubular sections up to Grade S550 may be used with concrete
class up to C190, although test evidence by Liew et al. [3] shows that
the strain of the confined concrete at peak stress of CFST is much higher
than the concrete without any lateral confinement. Alternatively, the
maximum steel strength can be determined according to the concrete
characteristic strength with strength class up to C190 using the follow-
ing expression:
 
0:31
f y ¼ min 0:7Ea ð f ck þ 8Þ ; 550 ð5Þ
Fig. 13. Comparison between CFSTs with varying steel strength.
225
3.4. Case study
The M–N interaction curves for a CFST column with section shown in
Fig. 11 are determined according to the proposed design method given
in Section 3.2. Fig. 12 shows a comparison for the CFST column with
varying concrete strength but remaining the steel yield strength. The
axial resistance increases generally more than the moment resistances.
For short columns governed by cross-sectional capacity, increase of
concrete strength would benefit more. The increase of concrete strength
(80% & 280%) is more than the increase in the cross section resistances,
indicating a nonlinear relationship between the concrete strength and
the axial or moment resistances.
The effect of steel yield strength is shown in Fig. 13. The moment
resistance increases more than the axial compression resistance when
varying the steel grade increases from S355 to S550, indicating that
the benefit from increasing the steel strength is more for CFSTs subject-
ed to higher flexural load. The increase of moment resistance is compa-
rable with that of steel strength, showing nearly a linear relationship
between the steel strength and the increase of moment resistance.
For the CFST columns used in high-rise buildings, they are usually
subject to combined effects of high compression force and bending
moment. These effects could be effectively resisted by increasing the
concrete and steel strengths as shown in Fig. 14. The combined use of
C190 concrete and S550 steel shows superior performance on improv-
ing the overall resistance and thus it is more economical in terms of
reducing steel and concrete materials, using less weld consumable, re-
ducing the cost of fire protection and fabrication, reducing construction
226 J.Y.R. Liew et al. / Structures 8 (2016) 213–226
Fig. 14. Comparison between CFSTs with varying both concrete and steel strengths.
time and increasing usable floor area. It is believed that the saving
deriving from such benefits is more than enough to offset the cost
increase by using higher strength materials.
4. Conclusions
Based on calibration with 2033 test data, the current EC 4 method
can be safely extended to the design of concrete filled steel tubular
(CFST) members with steel strength up to 550 N/mm2 and concrete
compressive cylinder strength up to 190 N/mm2, with the following
modifications and restrictions:
• This design guide is meant for CFTS members with at least Class 3 steel
section. Class 4 steel section should not be used.
• Matching grades of steel and concrete materials should be used.
Table 17 provides a guide to select the grade of steel and class of
concrete for the design of CFST members to avoid the crushing of
the core concrete before yielding of steel section.
• A strength reduction factor should be applied for high strength
concrete with cylinder strength greater than 50 N/mm2 but less
than 90 N/mm2. Accordingly, the secant modulus of concrete should
also be modified.
• For ultra-high strength concrete with compressive cylinder strength
higher than 90 N/mm2 but less than 190 N/mm2, a conservative
approach is to adopt the concrete strength reduction factor of 0.8
and further ignore the concrete confinement effect. Steel with yield
strength greater than 550 N/mm2 may be used with ultra-high
strength concrete provided that a more accurate assessment on the
concrete strain at peak stress, considering the tri-axial confinement
effect from the steel tube, is carried out.
Overall, the design recommendations proposed in this paper will
endow structural engineers with the confidence to use high strength
materials in a safe and economic manner to design high-rise buildings.
References
[1] Liew JYR, Xiong DX. Ultra-high strength concrete filled composite columns for multi-
storey building construction. Adv Struct Eng 2012;15(9):1487–503.
[2] Liew JYR, Xiong MX, Xiong DX. Design of high strength concrete filled tubular
columns for tall buildings. J High-Rise Build 2014;3(3):1–7.
[3] Liew JYR, Zhang MH, Chia KS. Steel concrete composite systems employing ultra-
high strength steel and concrete for sustainable high rise construction. SERC grant
no. 0921420045 — final report. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
National University of Singapore; 2013 [359 p.].
[4] Liew JYR. Buildable design of multi-storey and large span steel structures. J Steel
Struct 2004;4(2):53–70.
[5] Endo F, Yamanaka M, Ti W, Kageyama M, Yoshida O, Katsumata H, et al. Advanced
technologies applied at the new “Techno Station” building in Tokyo, Japan. Struct
Eng Int 2011;21(4):508–13.
[6] Liu DL, Gho WM, Yuan J. Ultimate capacity of high-strength rectangular concrete-
filled steel hollow section stub columns. J Constr Steel Res 2003;59(12):1499–515.
[7] Liu DL. Tests on high-strength rectangular concrete-filled steel hollow section stub
columns. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61(7):902–11.
[8] Han LH, Yao GH, Zhao XL. Tests and calculations for hollow structural steel (HSS)
stub columns filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC). J Constr Steel Res 2005;
61(9):1241–69.
[9] Lue DM, Liu JL, Yen T. Experimental study on rectangular CFT columns with high-
strength concrete. J Constr Steel Res 2007;63(1):37–44.
[10] Yu Q, Tao Z, Wu YX. Experimental behaviour of high performance concrete-filled
steel tubular columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2008;46(4):362–70.
[11] Varma AH, Ricles JM, Sause R, Lu LW. Experimental behavior of high strength square
concrete-filled steel tube beam-columns. J Struct Eng ASCE 2002;128(3):309–18.
[12] Gho WM, Liu DL. Flexural behaviour of high-strength rectangular concrete-filled
steel hollow sections. J Constr Steel Res 2004;60(11):1681–96.
[13] Liu DL. Behaviour of high strength rectangular concrete-filled steel hollow section
columns under eccentric loading. Thin-Walled Struct 2004;42(12):1631–44.
[14] Liu DL. Tests on high-strength rectangular concrete-filled steel hollow section stub
columns. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61(7):902–11.
[15] Liu DL. Behaviour of eccentrically loaded high-strength rectangular concrete-filled
steel tubular columns. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62(8):839–46.
[16] Portoles JM, Serra E, Romero ML. Influence of ultra-high strength infill in slender
concrete-filled steel tubular columns. J Constr Steel Res 2013;86:107–14.
[17] Uy B. Strength of short concrete filled high strength steel box columns. J Constr Steel
Res 2001;57(2):113–34.
[18] Mursi M, Uy B. Strength of slender concrete filled high strength steel box columns. J
Constr Steel Res 2004;60:1825–48.
[19] EN 1993-1-1. Eurocode 3 — design of steel structures — Part 1–1. General rules and
rules for buildings; 2005.
[20] EN 1994-1-1. Eurocode 4: design of composite steel and concrete structures — Part
1–1. General rules and rules for buildings; 2004.
[21] ASTM E8M – 04. Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials.
West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2004.
[22] AISC 360-10. Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago, USA: American In-
stitute of Steel Construction (AISC); 2010.
[23] GB 50936. Technical code for concrete-filled steel tubular structures. Ministry of
Housing and Urban–Rural Development of the People's Republic of China; 2014[in
Chinese].
[24] AIJ. Recommendations for design and construction of concrete filled steel tubular
structures. Japan: Architectural Institute of Japan; 1997.
[25] EN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures — Part 1–1. General rules
and rules for buildings; 2004.
[26] EN 1993-1-12. Eurocode 3 — design of steel structures — Part 1–12. Additional rules
for the extension of EN 1993 up to steel grades S700; 2007.
[27] Liew JYR, Xiong MX. Design guide for concrete filled tubular members with high
strength materials — an extension of Eurocode 4 method to C90/105 concrete and
S550 steel. Research Publishing Singapore; 2015.
[28] EN 1994-1-2. Eurocode 4: design of composite steel and concrete structures — Part
1–2. General rules – Structural fire design; 2005.
[29] Goode CD. Composite columns — 1819 tests concrete filled steel tube columns
compared with Eurocode 4. Struct Eng 2008;86(16) [19 August].
[30] Assi IM, Qudeimat EM, Hunaiti YM. Ultimate moment capacity of formed and light-
weight aggregate concrete filled steel tubes. Steel Compos Struct 2003;3(3):
199–212.