Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Structural behaviour of concrete-encased CFST box stub columns

under axial compression
Jin-Yang Chen a, Wei Li a, Lin-Hai Han a,⁎, Fa-Cheng Wang a, Ting-Min Mu b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
b
Sichuan Province Transportation Department Highway Planning, Survey, Design and Research Institute, Chengdu 610041, PR China

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

Article history: The axial performance of a type of concrete-encased CFST box stub column, which consists of the outer reinforced
Received 2 July 2018 concrete (RC) box column and six embedded CFST components, is investigated in this study. A total of eight axial
Received in revised form 15 January 2019 compression tests on the concrete-encased CSFT box specimens under axial compression were carried out. A
Accepted 17 March 2019
finite element analysis (FEA) model was developed to analyze the structural behavior of the composite columns.
Available online xxxx
The effects of material nonlinearity and interaction properties between the concrete and the steel tubes on the
Keywords:
simulation were considered. The verified FEA model was then used to conduct a full-range analysis on
Concrete-filled steel tube (CFST) the load-deformation responses. The results of typical failure modes, internal load and stress distributions and
Concrete-encased CFST the contact stresses between the concrete and the steel tubes were also discussed. Parametric studies were con-
Box member ducted to investigate the effects of geometric and material properties on the compressive behavior of the
Axial compression concrete-encased CSFT box members. Finally, a simplified model was proposed to predict the ultimate strength
Full-range analysis and the initial stiffness of the concrete-encased CFST box stub columns under axial compression.
Ultimate strength © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The concrete-encased concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) box
column, which consists of the reinforced concrete (RC) box column
with several CFST components embedded in web walls and corners,
has been developed and increasingly used in bridge arches and piers
in China [1]. The typical cross section of this composite column is
shown in Fig. 1. There are six CFST components in this hollow composite
column: four in the corners and two in the RC web walls. The diameter
of the CFST components in the corners is usually set to be larger
than that of the CFST components in the web walls to increase its flex-
ural capacity. Compared with the conventional RC columns or the
concrete-encased CFST columns, this composite column has a higher
bearing capacity and construction efficiency. Fig. 2(a) shows the appli-
cation of the composite structural member in Guanshengqu River
Bridge in Sichuan Province of China, where the member served as the
arch of the bridge. The cross-sectional height of the arch ribs varied
from 3500 mm to 6000 mm along the arch axis direction to further re-
duce the self-weight. The construction process of the bridge arch is
shown in Fig. 2(b).
The structural behavior of the concrete-encased CFST box column
could be briefly understood through previous investigations on the
concrete-encased CFST members (e.g. [2,3]) and the conventional RC
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lhhan@tsinghua.edu.cn (L.-H. Han).
box members (e.g. [4–7]). The typical cross sections of these members
are illustrated in Fig. 1(b) and (c) respectively. The concrete-encased
CFST box columns are generally subjected to axial compression or com-
bined axial compression and bending moment when being used in
bridge arches or piers. An et al. [8] conducted tests and finite element
analysis (FEA) on the square concrete-encased CFST box stub columns
under axial compression, where the cross section consisted of one RC
box stub column embedded with four CFST components in the corners.
Han et al. [9] carried out experiments and numerical analysis on the
square concrete-encased CFST box members under bending, where
the cross section also included CFST components in the corners of the
RC components only. An et al. [10,11] experimentally and analytically
investigated the structural behaviors of eccentrically-loaded square
concrete-encased CFST box columns as they were generally subject to
axial compression and bending moment as arches or piers. The influ-
ence of concrete crushing and spalling under compression and concrete
cracking under tension led to the results that the load carrying capacity
was getting lower as the eccentricity and height-to-width ratio were
getting larger. The strength and stiffness were enhanced compared
with the corresponding RC box columns. In these specimens, the CFST
components only existed at corners of the cross section. Moreover, it
should be noted that the steel dilated more than the concrete under
axial compression during the elastic stage. The confinement provided
by the CFST columns inside could be decreased. As a result, the forma-
tion of splitting crack was important in the design and analysis of such
steel-concrete composite columns or arches [12,13]. In general, the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.03.021
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262 249

(1) To present the test results of the concrete-encased CFST box stub
Nomenclature
column under axial compression, including the failure modes and the
full loading history. The primary parameters designed in the experi-
Acore Cross-sectional area of core concrete in CFST
ments are the overall cross-sectional size (B × H) and the diameter of
component
the corner steel tubes (Dc). (2) To study the compressive behavior and
Al Cross-sectional area of longitudinal rebar
composite actions between different parts through verified finite
Aout Cross-sectional area of outer concrete in RC component
element models. (3) To develop a simplified design model for the pre-
As Cross-sectional area of steel tube
diction of the compressive ultimate strength of the composite column,
B Cross-sectional width of concrete-encased CFST box
by carrying out series of parametric studies on key parameters. The pa-
column
rameters investigated include: the yield stress of the steel tube (fys), the
D Diameter of steel tube
core concrete strength (fcu,core), the yield stress of the longitudinal rebar
Dc Diameter of steel tube in the corner
(fyl), the longitudinal rebar ratio (αl), the outer concrete strength
Dw Diameter of steel tube in the web wall
(fcu,out) and the space of the stirrup (s).
DI Ductility Index
E Modulus of elasticity
Es Steel tube modulus of elasticity 2. Experimental programme
EA Axial stiffness
f'c Concrete cylinder compressive strength 2.1. General description
fck,core Characteristic strength of core concrete in CFST
component A total of eight concrete-encased CFST box stub columns tests were
fck,out Characteristic strength of outer concrete in RC conducted. Fig. 3 shows the schematic views of the specimens, where
component the geometric dimensions of cross sections and the arrangements of
fcu,core Cube strength of core concrete in CFST component steel braces, strain gauges and longitudinal rebars are specified. Two
fcu,out Cube strength of outer concrete in RC component steel end plates with 20 mm thickness were placed at the ends of the
fy Yield strength of the steel material columns. The lengths of all specimens were designed to be three times
fyh Yield strength of stirrup of the cross-sectional width to avoid the influence of boundary condi-
fyl Yield strength of longitudinal rebar tions. Table 1 summarizes the details of the tested specimens. The
fys Yield strength of steel tube following identifications are used to characterize different specimens.
fu Ultimate strength of the steel material 1) The initial character ‘C' represents the specimens are under pure
H Cross-sectional height of concrete-encased CFST box axial compression. 2) The characters ‘L' and ‘S' denote that the cross sec-
column tions of the members are 300 × 420 mm and 120 × 160 mm, respec-
L Length of concrete-encased CFST box column tively. 3) The numbers ‘12’, ‘20’, ‘32’ and ‘48’ indicate the diameters of
N Axial load corner steel tubes. 4) The last numbers ‘1’ and ‘2’ are used to identify dif-
NCECFST Strength of concrete-encased CFST box column ferent specimens under the same load condition.
NCFST Strength of CFST component
Nu Ultimate strength of concrete-encased CFST box column 2.2. Material tests
Nuc Predicted ultimate strength
Nue Experimental ultimate strength Tensile coupon experiments were performed to measure the mate-
Nuc,CFST Predicted ultimate strength of CFST component rial properties of steel tubes and rebars. These tests were performed in
Nuc,RC Predicted ultimate strength of RC component accordance with GB/T228.1-2010 [14]. Strain gauges were affixed at
p Contact stress the middle length on both sides of the tensile coupons. The measured
p1 Contact stress between steel tube and core concrete material properties from all tensile coupon tests, together with the cor-
p2 Contact stress between steel tube and outer concrete responding geometric dimensions, are listed in Table 2. For the concrete,
s Space of stirrup the average measured cube strength of the core concrete for the 28th
t Wall thickness of steel tube day and the test day was 97.8 N/mm2 and 101.2 N/mm2, respectively.
tc Wall thickness of steel tube in the corner The modulus of elasticity of the outer concrete was 34,000 N/mm2.
tw Wall thickness of steel tube in the web wall The Poisson's ratio of the outer concrete was 0.21. The initial fluidity
αl Longitudinal rebar ratio (=Al/(Al + Aout)) of RC of the core concrete was 330 mm, and the flowability of the core con-
component crete after 30 min was 280 mm. The bleeding rate of the core concrete
εc Compressive strain was zero. The mix design of the outer concrete was as follows: water:
εu Ultimate strain 158 kg/m3; cement: 377 kg/m3; sand: 679 kg/m3; coarse aggregate:
σc Compressive stress 1062 kg/m3; water reducer: 11.2 kg/m3; fly ash: 132 kg/m3. The average
σh Stress of stirrup measured cube strength of the outer concrete for the 28th day and the
ξ Confinement factor (=Asfys/Acorefck,core) of CFST test day was 58.9 N/mm2 and 61.3 N/mm2, respectively.
component

2.3. Specimen preparation

As shown in Fig. 4, The specimens were fabricated in following steps.

studies on the concrete-encased CFST box columns with CFST compo-
nents embedded in both web walls and corners are still limited. The en-
gineering practices show that this kind of composite member deserves
systematic investigations accordingly.
This paper experimentally and numerically studies the structural
performance of the concrete-encased CFST box stub column under
axial compression, where CFST components exist in both web walls
and corners of the cross section. The main objectives are three folds.
1) Six CFST members were prepared and the steel braces were appropri-
ately welded at different positions. 2) The wooden formwork outside,
the plastic plate fillers inside and the rebars were installed at the correct
position. 3) The concrete was cast into the interlayer between the outer
wooden formwork and inner plastic plate fillers. 4) The wooden form-
work and the plastic plate fillers were removed when the concrete
was hardened for 10 days, and the members were cured under labora-
tory conditions before testing.
250 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262

Longitudinal rebar Stirrup Steel tube

Core concrete
Core concrete
Confined
concrete Confined concrete
Dw (b) Concrete-encased CFST section
Hollow

H
section Hh 
tw Longitudinal rebar
Steel tube
Stirrup
m
Dc Bh
tc
Hollow section

B Confined concrete
(a) Concrete-encased CFST box section
(c) RC box section

Fig. 1. A schematic view of the concrete-encased CFST box column cross section.

2.4. Loading process
The specimens C-L and specimens C-S were tested in the structural
laboratory in Tsinghua University by 20,000 kN and 5000 kN loading fa-
cilities, respectively. A load interval of less than one-tenth of the esti-
mated ultimate strength was carried out. Each load interval lasted for
approximately 2 min. When the load was near the estimated load
capacity, the displacement control was used until the failure of the
specimens.
Fig. 5 shows the layout of the test arrangements of the stub columns.
Displacement transducers and linear variable displacement transducers
(LVDTs) were employed to measure the axial deformation. In order to
monitor the axial shortening, the strain gauges were placed at the mid-
dle length of the outer concrete, the steel tubes and the longitudinal
rebars.
2.5. Test results
The outer concrete of the concrete-encased CFST box stub columns
was bulged and crushed near the middle height, as shown in Figs. 6(a)
and 7(a). Fig. 8 shows the schematic view of the development of the
concrete cracks in all specimens. At the beginning of the loading, little
cracks could be found in concrete. When the load reached 75%–85% of
the ultimate strength, visible longitudinal cracks on the concrete surface

3000

Concrete-encased CFST box arch ribs

1340
3500-6000

860

Bridge deck slab

2200
Cross section (units: mm)
(a) Schematic view of the arch bridge with concrete-encased CFST box arch ribs

Establish CFST arch ribs Fabricate reinforcing cage Cast outer concrete
(b) Construction process

Fig. 2. A general view of the construction of Guanshengqu River Bridge in Sichuan Province.
 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262 251

B=300

102 96 102

48

78
Steel
gauge

195

H=420
264
150
Specimens

D=32 Concrete

129
120 gauge

78
Steel tubes

48
120
48 204 48

A A A A
120 A-A section (specimen C-L-32)

Concrete 900 B=300

gauges 120 102 96 102

48

78
120 Steel
Hollow steel gauge
tube braces

195

H=420
150

264
48 204 48 48 195 129 48 D=48 Concrete
End plates

129
gauge
300 420

78
48
Section views
48 204 48
(a) Schematic view of specimens C-L
A-A section (specimen C-L-48)

B=120
48 24 48
26

42

Steel
gauge
65

H=160
76

Specimens 50
D=12 Concrete
43

gauge
40
42
26

Steel tubes
40 26 68 26

A-A section (specimen C-S-12)

A A A A
40
300 B=120
Concrete
48 24 48
gauges 40
26

42

Steel
40 gauge
rebars
65

H=160

50
76

D=20 Concrete
43

26 68 26 End plates 26 65 43 26 gauge

120 160
42
26

Section views
26 68 26
(b) Schematic view of specimens C-S
A-A section (specimen C-S-20)

Fig. 3. A schematic view of specimens (units: mm).

252 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262

Table 1
Specimen information.

No Specimen Height Cross-sectional Hollow size Corner Web steel Stirrup Long. Measured Measured Predicted Nuc/Nue
label L size B × H B h × Hh steel tube Dia.-space rebar εu (με) Nue (kN) Nuc (kN)
(mm) (mm) (mm) tube Dc × tc Dw × tw (mm) (mm) Dia. (mm)
(mm)

1 C-L-32-1 900 300 × 420 96 × 264 32.0 × 3.1 32.0 × 3.1 ϕ4.0–150 12ϕ11.8 2133 5809 5339 0.919
2 C-L-32-2 900 300 × 420 96 × 264 32.0 × 3.1 32.0 × 3.1 ϕ4.0–150 12ϕ11.8 1967 5619 5339 0.950
3 C-L-48-1 900 300 × 420 96 × 264 47.8 × 3.6 32.0 × 3.1 ϕ4.0–150 12ϕ11.8 1987 5631 5938 1.055
4 C-L-48-2 900 300 × 420 96 × 264 47.8 × 3.6 32.0 × 3.1 ϕ4.0–150 12ϕ11.8 2050 6080 5938 0.977
5 C-S-12-1 300 120 × 160 24 × 76 12.0 × 2.1 12.0 × 2.1 ϕ4.0–50 12ϕ4.0 1995 908 928 1.022
6 C-S-12-2 300 120 × 160 24 × 76 12.0 × 2.1 12.0 × 2.1 ϕ4.0–50 12ϕ4.0 2506 845 928 1.098
7 C-S-20-1 300 120 × 160 24 × 76 20.2 × 2.2 12.0 × 2.1 ϕ4.0–50 12ϕ4.0 2244 1061 1077 1.015
8 C-S-20-2 300 120 × 160 24 × 76 20.2 × 2.2 12.0 × 2.1 ϕ4.0–50 12ϕ4.0 1958 1215 1077 0.886
Mean 0.990
Standard deviation 0.066

were observed. The cracks continued developing and expanding as the

Table 2
Material properties of steel tubes and rebars. load increased, and the outer concrete was crushed when the ultimate
strength was attained. The outer concrete was removed from the spec-
D (mm) t (mm) fy (N/mm2) fu (N/mm2) Es (N/mm2)
imens after the tests to study the residual conditions of the inner CFST
ϕ12 12.0 2.1 500.4 634.8 207,800 components and longitudinal rebars. As shown in Figs. 6(b) and 7(b),
ϕ20 20.2 2.2 492.8 641.2 209,900
the longitudinal rebars yielded and the visible deformation was ob-
ϕ32 32.0 3.1 397.1 508.9 205,900
ϕ48 47.8 3.6 374.7 502.3 201,100
served in the inner CFST components at the corresponding positions.
4 mm 4.0 – 383.4 621.7 208,100 It is due to the fact that the confinement of the outer concrete at the
12 mm 11.8 – 430.8 578.7 208,000 mid-height became less effective after the outer concrete was crushed.

Core concrete Core concrete Core concrete

CFST
Brace Brace
RC

Stirrup

Steel Steel Concrete-encased

tube tube Longitudinal CFST box specimen
Steel
tube rebar
CFST CFST
CFST

(a) CFST (b) CFST with braces (c) Reinforcing cage (d) Outer concrete

Fig. 4. Construction process.

End plate

End plate
Concrete gauge LVDT
Concrete gauge

Displacement
transducer
Specimen Specimen

20000kN testing 5000kN testing

machine machine

(a) Specimen C-L (b) Specimen C-S

Fig. 5. Layout of the tests.

 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262 253

C-L-32-1 C-L-32-2 C-L-48-2 C-L-48-1

Concrete
crushing

(a) Outer concrete

Longitudinal
rebar yielding

Steel tube
yielding

Core concrete remained intact

(b) Steel tube and longitudinal rebar (c) Core concrete

Fig. 6. Failure modes of specimens C-L.

This demonstrates that the outer RC component and the inner CFST
components worked together well during the loading process. The
core concrete remained intact owing to the confinement of the steel
tubes, as shown in Figs. 6(c) and 7(c).
Fig. 9 shows the measured axial load (N) versus axial strain (ε) rela-
tion of all tested specimens. In the elastic stage, a linear relationship
existed between the axial load and the axial strain. When the load
approached the ultimate strength, the axial deformation of the speci-
mens dramatically increased while both the steel tubes and the longitu-
dinal rebars yielded. The outer concrete crushed with a loud noise when
the ultimate strength was attained, and then the load decreased
significantly after the crush of the outer concrete. The developments
of the strain in the steel tubes, longitudinal rebars and outer concrete
are illustrated in Fig. 10. It can be seen that the increasing rates of the
strain in the longitudinal rebars both inside and outside, the steel
tubes and the outer concrete were generally consistent. This demon-
strated the well structural and composite behavior between the outer
RC component and the inner CFST components.
Fig. 11 shows that the ultimate strength (Nu) became higher with
the increase of the diameter of the corner steel tubes (Dc). The Ductility
Index DI defined by Han et al. [15] was adopted to exhibit the effects of
the steel tube diameters on the ductility of all specimens. DI can be

Concrete crushing Longitudinal

rebar yielding

Core concrete
Steel tube
remained intact
yielding

(a) Outer concrete (b) Steel tube and longitudinal rebar (c) Core concrete

Fig. 7. Failure modes of specimens C-S.

254 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262
Concrete
cracks
Concrete
cracks
0.75Nu Nu
(a) Specimens C-L
Concrete
cracks
Concrete
cracks
0.85Nu Nu
(b) Specimens C-S
Fig. 8. A schematic view of the development of concrete cracks.
expressed as:
DI ¼ ε85% =εy ð1Þ
In Eq. (1), ε85% is the longitudinal strain corresponding to the load
falls to 85% of the ultimate strength (Nu), and εy equals to ε75%/0.75,
where ε75% is the longitudinal shortening when the load reaches 75%
of Nu in the pre-peak stage. The value of ε85% and εy can be determined
from the N-ε relation in Fig. 9.
Fig. 11 shows DI calculated by Eq. (1) of all the tested specimens. It can
be seen that the diameters of the corner steel tubes had a significant influ-
ence on the ductility of the columns. When the dimension of the corner
steel tubes increased, the index DI increased 10.4% and 2.5% for the col-
umns with larger cross-sectional size (specimens C-L) and columns
with minor cross-sectional size (specimens C-S), respectively. The results
were consistent with the fact that the concrete-encased CFST box col-
umns had higher compressive ductility when compared to the RC box col-
umns, owing to the contribution of inner CFST components.
3. Finite element analysis (FEA) modeling
The ABAQUS/Standard module [16] was used to develop the FEA
model of the concrete-encased CFST box stub column under axial
compression. The overall view of the FEA model and its modeling
details are shown in Fig. 12. The FEA model consisted of the steel
tubes, the concrete, the longitudinal rebars, the stirrups and the
end plates. Considering different degrees of confinement effects,
the concrete was divided into four regions: the core concrete inside
Steel tube
yielding
Longitudinal
Concrete rebar yielding
crashing
unloading
Steel tube
yielding
Concrete
crashing Longitudinal
rebar yielding
unloading
the steel tubes, the confined concrete in the corners, the confined
concrete in the web walls and the unconfined concrete outside the
stirrups.
3.1. Properties of steel
The constitutive laws of the steel tubes and the rebars were simu-
lated through distinct non-linear material models. The elastic modulus
and the Poisson's ratio of the steel were consistently defined as
206,000 N/mm2 and 0.3, respectively. A five-stage stress-strain model
suggested by Han et al. [17] was applied for the steel tubes. A bi-linear
model considering strain hardening effect was adopted for the uniaxial
stress-strain curves of the longitudinal rebars and the stirrups, where
the hardening stiffness was set as 2060 N/mm2.
3.2. Properties of concrete
The damage plasticity model was utilized for the concrete. The elas-
tic modulus of the concrete was taken as 4730 (f'c)0.5 as presented in ACI
38-11 [18], where f'c represented the compressive strength of the con-
crete cylinder. The Poisson's ratio of the concrete was set as 0.2.
As illustrated in Fig. 13, the concrete was divided into four regions,
namely the core concrete inside the steel tubes, the confined concrete
in the corners, the confined concrete in the web walls and the uncon-
fined concrete outside the stirrups. Different stress-strain relations
were applied depending on the corresponding regions. For the core con-
crete inside the steel tubes, the model suggested by Han et al. [17] was
adopted to represent the uniaxial stress-strain relation as shown in
 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262
Fig. 9. Comparisons of predicted and measured N-ε relations.
Fig. 14(a). Fig. 14 also shows the stress-strain curves of the confined
concrete in the corners and in the web walls. The detailed description
could be found in An et al. [8], in which the length Bcx and Bcy are illus-
trated in Fig. 13. The model of unconfined concrete provided by Attard
and Setunge [19] was used for the uniaxial stress-strain relation of the
unconfined concrete outside the stirrups in this model.
For the concrete in tension, the work done by Spacone et al. [20] was
referred for the stress-strain relation of the concrete in tension. The
cracking strength of concrete (σt) was set as 0.3·(f'c)0.67 according to
Model Code 2010 [21].
3.3. Element type, mesh, boundary conditions and interface model
The eight-node-3 -D solid element with reduced integration was uti-
lized for the concrete components and the end plates. The steel tubes
Fig. 10. N-ε relation of different materials at the middle height (specimen C-S-20-2).
255
were generally simulated with four-node conventional shell element.
However, for the two steel tubes with relatively large wall thickness
(D/t ≤ 10), i.e., tubes ϕ12 × 2 mm and ϕ20 × 2 mm, the eight-node-3 -
D solid element was adopted to ensure the convergence [22]. The longi-
tudinal rebars and the stirrups were simulated by two-node truss
elements.
The mesh sensitive analysis was carried out to achieve the balance
between accuracy and efficiency for the calculation. The stiffness of
the end plates was set to be large enough to represent the rigid plates.
The axial load was applied at one end plate through the displacement
control, while all the degrees of freedom of the other end plate were
restrained.
The rebar elements were embedded in the outer concrete to restrict
the degrees of freedom at the rebar nodes. The “Tie” method was uti-
lized for the contact between the steel tubes and the end plates, as
well as the contact between the concrete and the end plates. The inter-
action between the steel tubes and the concrete was simulated in this
model. The “Hard contact” method in ABAQUS was used to simulate
the contact behavior in the normal direction, where penetrations of
nodes were not allowed to occur on the surfaces. The Mohr-Coulomb
friction model was used in the tangential direction, which allowed
the slippage between the contacting surfaces of the steel tubes and
the concrete. A frictional coefficient of 0.6 suggested by Han et al. [9]
was used for all the steel tubes to the concrete surfaces tentatively in
this study.
3.4. Residual stress and geometric imperfection
The modeling of residual stress was neglected in this study to
improve the computation efficiency. Previous researchers [23] found
that the residual stress has limited effects on the full-range load-
256 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262

Fig. 11. Effects of the diameters of the corner steel tubes (Dc) on N-ε relations.

Axial load, dx=dy=0

End plate
Confined concrete Confined concrete
in the corner in the web wall
Longitudinal
rebar

Unconfined concrete Stirrup Core

concrete

Longitudinal rebar Steel tube

Brace

Steel tube Outer concrete

z
Stirrup
y o x End plate
Core concrete dx=dy=dz=0
rx=ry=rz=0
(a) Mesh
(b) Boundary conditions

Fig. 12. Finite element model of the concrete-encased CFST box stub column.

displacement relations of the steel columns. It is expected that the influ-
ence of residual stress could be neglected if the concrete remained
intact. Therefore, it was reasonable to ignore the residual stress in the
FE simulations.
The geometric imperfection on the CFST stub columns only has a
moderate effect on the column strength. The decreasing rates of the col-
umn strength ranged from 1% to 4% for different square sections [24].
Therefore, the geometric imperfection was not included in the FEA
modeling to enhance the computation efficiency.
was crushed and bulged outward at the middle height of the specimens.
The visible deformation was observed in the inner CFST components,
while the core concrete remained intact due to the confinement of the
steel tubes.
In general, the comparisons of the failure patterns and the load-
deformation relations showed that the proposed FEA model could
reasonably simulate the behavior of the composite stub columns
under axial compression. The verified FEA model could be used in the
further study of the column behavior.

3.5. Verification of the FEA modeling

Web wall region Stirrup
The eight specimens tested in this study were used to verify the FEA Corner Confined
models. Fig. 9 shows the comparisons between the predicted and mea- region concrete
sured N-ε relations of the tested specimens. The calculated ultimate
Bcy
strength (Nuc) and measured ultimate strength (Nue) of all the tested
specimens are shown in Table 1. The mean value and the standard devi- Unconfined Bcx
ation of Nuc/Nue were 0.990 and 0.066, respectively. The existing exper- concrete Confined concrete
imental results collected from An et al. [8], Nie et al. [25] and Hoshikuma region in the corner Bcy
et al. [26] were also utilized for the verification of the FEA modeling, as
summarized in Fig. 15. The cross-sectional types of the specimens were Bcy
Core
square RC box columns, square concrete-encased CFST stub columns
concrete
and rectangular RC columns, respectively. The corresponding mean
region Bcx Bcx
value and the standard deviation of Nuc/Nue were 1.037 and 0.042, re-
spectively. Typical failure modes from the FE simulations were com- Confined concrete in the web wall
pared with those from the tests in this study and the comparisons are
presented in Fig. 16 accordingly. It can be seen that the outer concrete Fig. 13. A schematic view of concrete regions in the concrete-encased CFST box section.
 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262
Fig. 14. A schematic view of concrete σc-εc relation under compression.
4. Analytical behaviour
4.1. Full-range load-deformation relation
A typical concrete-encased CFST box stub column is designed to in-
vestigate the structural behavior under axial compression. Fig. 17
shows the schematic view of the specimen. The sectional width (B),
height (H) and length (L) are 1000 mm, 1400 mm and 3000 mm, re-
spectively. The width (Bh) and height (Hh) of the hollow section are
520 mm and 920 mm, respectively. The diameters (D) of the corner
steel tubes, the web steel tubes and the hollow steel tube braces are
117 mm, 91 mm and 51 mm, respectively. The corresponding wall
thicknesses (t) are 3 mm, 2 mm and 2 mm, respectively. The material
properties are as follows: fcu,core = 100 N/mm2, fcu,out = 50 N/mm2, fys
Fig. 15. Comparisons of Nu between the predicted and experimental results.
Concrete
crushing
Outward
bulging
Observed Predicted
(a) Outer concrete
Fig. 16. Comparisons of failure modes between predicted and tested columns (specimen C-L-32).
257
= 345 N/mm2, fyl = 335 N/mm2, fyh = 335 N/mm2. The diameter of
the longitudinal rebars is 18 mm, and the longitudinal rebar ratio αl (de-
fined as Al/(Al + Aout), where Al and Aout are the cross-sectional area of
the longitudinal rebars and the outer concrete, respectively) equals
1.3%. The diameter and the space of the stirrups are 10 mm and
150 mm, respectively. The thickness of the concrete cover is 30 mm.
Fig. 18 shows the calculated axial load (N) versus axial strain (ε) re-
lation of the concrete-encased CFST box column. The contributions of
different components, namely the core concrete of CFST components,
the confined concrete, the unconfined concrete, the steel tubes and
the longitudinal rebars, are also illustrated in Fig. 18. Four characteristic
points are marked in the N-ε response curve. At point A, the steel tubes
and longitudinal rebars begin yielding; at point B, the unconfined con-
crete reaches its ultimate strength; at point C, the column reaches the
ultimate strength (Nu); at point D, the axial load fails to 85% of Nu. The
distributions of longitudinal stress (S33) of the concrete at these four
points are shown in Fig. 19.
Stage I (OA): The column generally behaves elastically in this
stage. The longitudinal stress of the core concrete is larger than that
of the concrete outside the steel tubes, as shown in Fig. 19(a). The
unconfined concrete, the confined concrete in the web walls and
the confined concrete in the corners reach 91%、84% and 83% of
their ultimate strength at point A, respectively. Loads of the core con-
crete and the steel tubes are 69% and 89% of their ultimate strength at
point A, respectively.
Stage II (AB): The longitudinal strain increases quickly when the
axial load increases in this stage. The unconfined concrete reaches its ul-
timate strength at point B and begins to crush as shown in Fig. 19(b).
Loads of the core concrete inside the steel tubes and the confined con-
crete in the corners are 80% and 94% of their ultimate strength at
point B, respectively. The steel tubes are withstanding 98% of its ulti-
mate strength. The longitudinal rebars have yielded at point B.
Concrete
crushing
Outward
bulging
Predicted Observed Observed Predicted
(b) Inner CFST components (c) Core concrete
258 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262

500
Specimens B=1000
120 760 120
400
Steel

120
tubes
400

A A A

690
A

H=1400
400
3000 Dw=91
400 Dc=117

470
120
400
Hollow steel
tube braces 240 520 240
500

End plates
120 760 120 120 690 470 120
A-A section (units: mm)
1000 1400
Section views

Fig. 17. A schematic view of the typical column.

Stage III (BC): During this stage, the load carried by the uncon-
fined concrete decreases, while the resistance provided by the con-
fined concrete in the web walls remains increasing. As shown in
Fig. 19(c), the maximum longitudinal stress of the confined concrete
in the corners and web walls is higher than that of the unconfined
concrete (f'c = 41kN/mm2) at point C owing to the confinement ef-
fects of the stirrups. Due to the confinement of the steel tubes, the
peak longitudinal stress of the core concrete is 3.9% larger than the
maximum compressive stress of the corresponding plain concrete
(f'c = 90 N/mm2).
Stage IV (CD): The whole load begins to fail and the longitudinal
strain increases quickly. As shown in Fig. 19(d), the loads provided by
the unconfined concrete and the confined concrete in the web walls
begin to decrease, while the strength of the core concrete still continues
to increase after point C. The maximum stress of the core concrete in
this stage is 27.7% higher than the peak stress of the corresponding
plain concrete (f'c = 90 N/mm2).
Fig. 20 shows the load contributions of the inner CFST compo-
nents and the outer RC component of the concrete-encased CFST
box stub column. It can be found that the RC component reaches
its bearing capacity when the whole column reaches the ultimate
strength at the ultimate strain (εu). As shown in Fig. 20(a), the resis-
tance provided by the CFST components increases during the full
loading history. Therefore, the ultimate strength of the CFST compo-
nents can be defined as the load carried by the CFST components
when the axial strain (ε) reaches εscy. Han et al. [27] suggested εscy
can be calculated as:
the crushing of concrete in the RC component occurs while the con-
tribution of the CFST components remains, which means the contri-
butions of the CFST components keep increasing during the whole
loading history.
4.2. Interactions between steel and concrete
There are different types of interactions between the steel and the
concrete. The outer concrete is confined by the stirrups within the RC
component. The confinement to the core concrete is provided by the
steel tubes within the CFST components. Meanwhile, the contact stress
exists between the steel tubes of the CFST components and the outer
concrete of the RC component.
(1) Within the RC component: Fig. 21 shows the stress of the stirrups
(σh) versus axial strain (ε) relation at Point 1 at the middle height
of the column. With the increasing ε, σh is still in the elastic stage
before Point A. Then the increasing trend of σh becomes obvious
after Point A. The stirrups begin yielding at Point C when the RC
component reaches its ultimate strength. It should be noted
that the stirrups provide the confinement to the outer concrete
and the ductility of the column is improved accordingly.
(2) Within the CFST components: Fig. 22(a) shows the interaction
stresses between the steel tubes and the core concrete (p1) at
four different points. When ε is less than 2000 με, p1 remains
zero because the Poisson's ratio of the steel tubes is larger than

0
 0

0:2
εscy ¼ 1300 þ 12:5 f c þ 600 þ 33:5f c ξ ðμεÞ ð2Þ

where ξ is the confinement factor of the CFST components. As shown

in Fig. 20(a), the load of the CFST components at εu is close to that at
εscy given by Eq. (2), which indicates that the CFST components ap-
proximately reach its ultimate strength at εu.
Fig. 20(b)shows NCFST/NCECFST-ε relation of the composite column,
in which NCFST and NCECFST are the ultimate strength of the CFST
components and the whole concrete-encased CFST box column, re-
spectively. From Point A to Point C, NCFST/NCECFST increases from
0.12 to 0.14. After Point C, NCFST/NCECFST increases quickly because Fig. 18. Typical axial load (N) versus axial strain (ε) relation.
 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262 259

Fig. 19. The distributions of S33 stress of the concrete (units: N/mm2).

that of the core concrete in the elastic stage and the lateral ex-
pansion of the steel tubes is subsequently larger than that of
the core concrete. When ε is larger than 2000 με, p1 appears for
the reason that the expansion of the core concrete is larger
than that of the steel tubes after the concrete comes into the
plastic stage. Due to the existence of p1, the longitudinal stress
of the core concrete at Point C is higher than that of the corre-
sponding plain concrete.
(3) Between the RC component and the CFST components: Fig. 22
(b) shows the interaction stresses between the steel tubes and

Fig. 20. The load distribution of the CFST components and the RC component.
260 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262
Fig. 21. Stress of the stirrups (σh) versus axial strain (ε) relation.
the outer concrete (p2) in different positions. When ε is less than
1000 με, p2 exists since the lateral expansion of the steel tubes is
larger than that of the outer concrete. However, p2 almost disap-
pears when ε is between 1000 με and 2000 με because the lateral
expansion of the outer concrete is larger than that of the steel
tubes during this period. When ε is larger than 3000 με, p2 mainly
exists at Point 1 and Point 3, which means the lateral deforma-
tion of the steel tubes is confined by the outer concrete again at
these two points.
5. Parametric analysis and ultimate strength calculation
5.1. Parametric analysis
The influence on N-ε response of various parameters is presented.
The parameters are as follows:
1) For the CFST components: the yield stress of the steel tube fys = 235–
420 N/mm2 and the core concrete strength fcu,core = 60–100 N/mm2.
2) For the RC component: the yield stress of the longitudinal rebar fyl =
235–400 N/mm2, the longitudinal rebar ratio αl = 0.5%–2.0%, the
outer concrete strength fcu,out = 40–60 N/mm2 and the space of
the stirrup s = 100–200 mm.
Fig. 23 shows the effects of different parameters on N-ε relations.
1) In general, Nu increases slightly as fys, fcu,core, fyl and αl increase while
s has a little effect on Nu. It can be seen that fcu,out has a significant
influence on Nu because the strength contribution of the RC compo-
nent is significant among all components of the column.
2) As the increase of s, εu decreases because the confinement effect pro-
vided by the stirrups decreases and the column reaches the ultimate
strain earlier accordingly. However, there is minor effects on εu of fys,
fcu,core, fyl, αl and fcu,out.
Fig. 22. Interaction stresses between the steel tubes and the concrete.
3) The initial stiffness of the column increases quickly when fcu,out in-
creases as the elastic stiffness of the outer concrete is higher. When
αl is increasing, the steel ratio of the column is getting larger and
the initial stiffness is correspondingly increasing. However, fys,
fcu,core, fyl and s have limited influence on the initial stiffness.
4) The ductility of the column decreases when fcu,out and s increase due
to the reduction of the confinement effect provided by the stirrups.
There is a little effect on the ductility of fys, fcu,core, fyl and αl.
5.2. Prediction of the ultimate strength
The simplified method provided by An et al. [8] is used to predict the
ultimate strength of the concrete-encased CFST box column under axial
compression, where the ultimate strength of the inner CFST compo-
nents and the outer RC component is superimposed together. It is
owing to the fact that the RC component reaches its ultimate strength
and the CFST components approximately reach its bearing capacity
when the load attains Nu. In this approach, the confinement to the
core concrete provided by the steel tubes is considered while the con-
tact stress between the steel tubes and outer concrete (p2) is not
taken into consideration. Thus, the simplified method for predicting
the ultimate strength (Nuc) can be expressed as:
Nuc ¼ Nuc;RC þ Nuc;CFST ð3Þ
here Nuc,RC and Nuc,CFST are the predicted ultimate strength of the outer
RC component and the inner CFST components, respectively. When all
the material design coefficients are taken as unity, Nuc,RC can be calcu-
lated according to GB50010–2010 [28] as follows:
Nuc;RC ¼ f ck;out Aout þ f yl Al ð4Þ
where fck,out and fyl are the characteristic strength of the outer concrete
and the yield stress of the longitudinal rebars, respectively. Aout and Al
are the cross-sectional area of the outer concrete and the longitudinal
rebars, respectively.
According to GB 51249-2017 [29], Nuc,CFST can be calculated as:
Nuc;CFST ¼ ð1:14 þ 1:02ξÞðAs þ Acore Þf ck;core ð5Þ
where fck,core is the characteristic strength of the core concrete, As and
Acore are the cross-sectional area of the steel tubes and the core concrete,
respectively. ξ (=Asfys/Acorefck,core) is the confinement factor of the CFST
components, in which fys represents the yield stress of the steel tubes.
According to ANSI/AISC360-16 [30], the nominal axial stiffness can
be taken as the summation of the elastic axial stiffness of each compo-
nent. However, the stiffness reduction factor 0.8 is used for the compos-
ite members under axial compression to account for the inelastic
softening behavior (e.g., concrete cracking and steel yielding) prior to
J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262 261

Fig. 23. Effects of different parameters on N-ε relations.

Fig. 24. Comparisons between the predicted and measured results.

262 J.-Y. Chen et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 248–262
the members reaching their ultimate strength. Thus, the simplified
method for predicting the axial stiffness of the column (EA) can be
expressed as:

211–228.
EA ¼ 0:8 Ec;out Aout þ Ec;core Acore þ Es As þ El Al
where Ec,out, Ec,core, Es and El are the elastic stiffness of the outer
concrete, the core concrete, the steel tubes and the longitudinal rebars,
respectively. Aout, Acore, As and Al are the corresponding cross-sectional
area.
Fig. 24(a) shows the calculated and measured ultimate strength (Nu)
of the concrete-encased CFST box stub columns under axial compres-
sion from the tests conducted in this study. Good agreements between
the experiments and predictions have been achieved. The mean value
and the standard deviation of Nuc/Nue are 1.008 and 0.093, respectively.
Fig. 24(b) shows that the predictions of the initial elastic stiffness (E) are
conservative compared with the measured one.
6. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn within the limitations of the
current research:
(1) A total of eight concrete-encased CFST box stub columns were
tested under axial compression. The ultimate strain (εu) of the
tested specimens ranged from 0.002 to 0.0025 when the ultimate
strength (Nu) was reached. It showed that the RC component and
the CFST components worked well together during the whole
loading process. The ultimate strength and the ductility of the
concrete-encased CFST box column was improved as the steel
tubes with larger diameter were used.
(2) FEA models of the concrete-encased CFST box stub columns
under axial compression were developed. The experimental
results in this study were used to verify the FEA models. The
predictions showed good agreements with the test results in
terms of the N-ε relation and the failure modes when different
stress-strain relationships were used in different concrete re-
gions.
(3) The full-range analysis was conducted to investigate the N-ε rela-
tion of the composite column. The RC component and the CFST
components in the column almost reached their ultimate
strength simultaneously when the whole composite column
reached its own. A series of parametric analysis was conducted.
The simplified model to calculate the ultimate strength of the
concrete-encased CFST box columns was suggested. The feasibil-
ity of the model was evaluated by comparing the predictions
with the experimental data. The proposed model could be used
in the design of concrete-encased CFST box stub column.
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this paper is part of Project 51678341 sup-
ported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). The
financial support is highly appreciated.
References
[1] 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)
ð6Þ [2] L.H. Han, Y.F. An, Performance of concrete-encased CFST stub columns under axial
compression, J. Constr. Steel Res. 93 (2014) 62–76.
[3] W.W. Qian, W. Li, L.H. Han, X.L. Zhao, Analytical behaviour of concrete-encased CFST
columns under cyclic lateral loading, J. Constr. Steel Res. 120 (2016) 206–220.
[4] Y.Y. Zhang, K.A. Harries, W.C. Yuan, Experimental and numerical investigation of the
seismic performance of hollow rectangular bridge piers constructed with and with-
out steel fiber reinforced concrete, Eng. Struct. 48 (2013) 255–265.
[5] Y.K. Yeh, Y.L. Mo, C.Y. Yang, Seismic performance of rectangular hollow bridge col-
umns, J. Struct. Eng. 128 (1) (2002) 60–68.
[6] V.K. Papanikolaou, A.J. Kappos, Numerical study of confinement effectiveness in
solid and hollow reinforced concrete bridge piers: analysis results and discussion,
Comput. Struct. 87 (21−22) (2009) 1440–1450.
[7] F.A. Zahn, R. Park, M.J.N. Priestley, Flexural strength and ductility of circular hollow
reinforced concrete columns without confinement on inside face, Struct. J. 87 (2)
(1990) 156–166.
[8] Y.F. An, L.H. Han, C. Roeder, Performance of concrete-encased CFST box stub col-
umns under axial compression, Structures 3 (2015) 211–226.
[9] L.H. Han, Y.F. An, C. Roeder, et al., Performance of concrete-encased CFST box mem-
bers under bending, J. Constr. Steel Res. 106 (2015) 138–153.
[10] Y.F. An, L.H. Han, X.L. Zhao, Experimental behaviour of box concrete-encased CFST
eccentrically loaded column, Mag. Concr. Res. 65 (20) (2013) 1219–1235.
[11] Y.F. An, L.H. Han, X.L. Zhao, Analytical behaviour of eccentrically loaded concrete-
encased CFST box columns, Mag. Concr. Res. 66 (15) (2014) 789–808.
[12] C.X. Dong, A.K.H. Kwan, J.C.M. Ho, A constitutive model for predicting the lateral
strain of confined concrete, Eng. Struct. 91 (2015) 155–166.
[13] A.K.H. Kwan, C.X. Dong, J.C.M. Ho, Axial and lateral stress–strain model for FRP con-
fined concrete, Eng. Struct. 99 (2015) 285–295.
[14] GB/T228.1-2010, Metallic materials-Tensile Testing-Part 1: Method of Test at Room
Temperature, Standards Press of China, Beijing, China, 2011 (in Chinese).
[15] L.H. Han, X.L. Zhao, Z. Tao, Tests and mechanics model for concrete-filled SHS stub
columns, columns and beam-columns, Steel Compos. Struct. 1 (1) (2001) 51–74.
[16] Karlson Hibbitt, Sorenson Inc, ABAQUS Version 6.5: Theory Manual, users' Manual,
Verification Manual and Example Problems Manual, 2005.
[17] 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.
[18] ACI 318-11, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit (USA), 2011.
[19] M.M. Attard, S. Setunge, Stress-strain relationship of confined and unconfined con-
crete, ACI Mater. J. 93 (5) (1996) 432–442.
[20] E. Spacone, F. Filippou, F. Taucer, Fibre beam-column modeling for nonlinear analy-
sis of R/C frames. Part I: formulation, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 25 (7) (1996)
711–725.
[21] Fédération Internationale du Béton, Model Code 2010: First Complete Draft, Lau-
sanne, Switzerland, 2010.
[22] A.J. Sadowski, J.M. Rotter, Solid or shell finite elements to model thick cylindrical
tubes and shells under global bending, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 74 (2013) 143–153.
[23] L. Gardner, D.A. Nethercot, Numerical modeling of stainless steel structural compo-
nents—a consistent approach, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (10) (2004) 1586–1601 ASCE.
[24] Z. Tao, B. Uy, L.H. Han, et al., Analysis and design of concrete-filled stiffened thin-
walled steel tubular columns under axial compression, Thin-Walled Struct. 47
(12) (2009) 1544–1556.
[25] J.G. Nie, Y. Bai, C.S. Cai, New connection system for confined concrete columns and
beams. I: experimental study, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (12) (2008) 1787–1799 ASCE.
[26] J. Hoshikuma, K. Kawashima, K. Nagaya, et al., Stress-strain model for confined rein-
forced concrete in bridge piers, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 123 (5) (1997) 624–633.
[27] L.H. Han, G.H. Yao, X.L. Zhao, Tests and calculations for hollow structural steel (HSS)
stub columns filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC), J. Constr. Steel Res. 61
(9) (2005) 1241–1269.
[28] GB50010-2010, Code for Design of Concrete Structures, China Building Industry
Press, Beijing, 2010 (in Chinese).
[29] GB51249-2017, Code for Fire Safety of Steel Structures in Buildings, Beijing: China
Planning Press, 2017 (in Chinese).
[30] ANSI/AISC 360-10, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago, 2010.