Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF CONCRETEFILLED STEEL TUBES
SUBJECTED TO AXIAL FORCE
HsuanTeh HU
1
, ChiungShiann HUANG
2
, MingHsien WU
3
and YihMin WU
3
SUMMARY
Proper material constitutive models for concretefilled steel tube (CFST) are proposed and
verified by the nonlinear finite element program ABAQUS against experimental data. The cross
sections of the CFST in the numerical analysis are categorized into three groups, i.e., circular
section, square section, and square section strengthened by reinforcing ties. Via the numerical
analyses, it has been show that for circular CFST, the tubes can provide good confining effect to
concrete especially when the diametertotube thickness ratio is small. For square CFST, the tubes
do not provide too much confining effect to concrete especially when the diametertotube
thickness ratio is large. The confining effect of square CFST with reinforcing ties is enhanced by
the use of reinforcing ties especially when the tie spacing is small and the tie number (or tie
diameter) is large.
Keywords: concretefilled steel tube, diametertotube thickness ratio, lateral confining pressure,
material degradation parameter.
INTRODUCTION
The concretefilled steel tube (CFST) can provide excellent earthquake resistant properties such as high strength,
high ductility and large energy absorption capacity. In addition, a considerable amount of time can be saved
during the construction stage due to the no need of formwork. As the result, the applications of CFST in
engineering structures have been increased rapidly in recent year (Furlong, 1967; Knowles and Park, 1969;
Furlong, 1974; Ge and Usami, 1992; Ge and Usami, 1994; Boyd, Cofer and McLean, 1995; Bradford, 1996;
Hajjar and Gourley, 1996; Shams and Saadeghvaziri, 1997; Uy, 1998; Morino, 1998; Schneider, 1998; Zhang
and Shahrooz, 1999; Liang and Uy, 2000; Huang et al., 2002).
The enhancement of CFST in structural properties is due to the composite action between the constituent
elements. The steel shell acts as longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. The shell also provides confining
pressure on concrete, which puts the concrete under a triaxial state of stress. On the other hand, the steel tube is
stiffened by the concrete core. This can prevent the inward buckling of the steel tube and increase the stability
and strength of the column as a system. It is known that the ultimate strengths of CFST are influenced by its
constituent material properties such as the compressive strength of the concrete and the yielding strength of the
steel. In addition, the ultimate strengths of CFST are also influenced by the concrete confining pressure and the
geometric properties of the tubes such as the shape of cross section, the diametertotube thickness ratio, and the
spacing and the diameter of the reinforcing tie.
The aim of this investigation is to employ the nonlinear finite element program ABAQUS (Hibbitt, Karlsson and
Sorensen, 2000) to perform numerical simulations of CFST subjected to axial loads. To achieve this goal, proper
material constitutive models for steel reinforcing tie, steel tube and concrete are proposed. Then the proposed
material constitutive models are verified against the experimental data from Schneider (1998) and Huang et al.
(2002). Finally, the influence of the concrete confining pressure and the geometric properties of the columns on
the uniaxial behavior of CFST are studied.
1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, email: hthu@mail.ncku.edu.tw
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan, email: cshuang@cc.nctu.edu.tw
3
Research Assistants, Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan
236
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
The cross sections of the CFST in this investigation can be categorized into three groups (Fig. 1), i.e., circular
section (denoted by CU), square section (denoted by SU), and square section strengthened with steel reinforcing
ties forming an octagonal shape (denoted by SS). The materials used in the numerical analysis involve steel
reinforcing tie (for SS section only), steel tube and concrete. Their proposed constitutive models are discussed in
the following sections.
Fig. 1 Cross sections of CFST
Steel Reinforcing Tie
When the stress in the reinforcing tie exceeds the yield stress, the tie will exhibit plastic deformation. The
stressstrain curve of the reinforcing tie is assumed to be elasticperfectly plastic with σ
y
being the yield stress
and E
s
the elastic modulus (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 Elasticperfectly plastic model for steel reinforcing tie
Steel Tube
In the analysis, the Poisson's ratio ν
s
of the steel tube is assumed to be ν
s
= 0.3.
Fig. 3 von Mises yield criterion in threedimensional principal stress space for steel tube
The uniaxial behavior of the steel tube is similar to reinforcing tie and thus can be simulated by an
elasticperfectly plastic model (Fig. 2). When the steel tube is subjected to multiple stresses, a von Mises yield
criterion F is employed to define the elastic limit, which is written as
y
) ( ) ( ) (
2
1
J 3 F
2
1 3
2
3 2
2
2 1 2
σ = σ − σ + σ − σ + σ − σ = = (1)
237
where J
2
is the second stress invariant of the stress deviator tensor and σ
1
, σ
2
, and σ
3
are principal stresses.
Figure 3 shows the von Mises yield surface in the threedimensional principal stress space. The response of the
steel tube is modeled by an elasticperfectlyplastic theory with associated flow rule. When the stress points fall
inside the yield surface, the behavior of the steel tube is linearly elastic. If the stresses of the steel tube reach the
yield surface, the behavior of the steel tube becomes perfectly plastic. Consequently, the steel tube is assumed to
fail and can not resist any further loading.
Concrete
The Poisson's ratio ν
c
of concrete under uniaxial compressive stress ranges from 0.15 to 0.22, with a
representative value of 0.19 or 0.20 (ASCE 1982). In this study, the Poisson's ratio of concrete is assumed to be
ν
c
= 0.2. Let the uniaxial compressive strength and the corresponding strain of the unconfined concrete be f
'
c
and ε
'
c
(Fig. 4). The value of ε
'
c
is usually around the range of 0.002 to 0.003. A representative value suggested
by ACI Committee 318 (1999) and used in the analysis is ε
'
c
= 0.003.
Fig. 4 Equivalent uniaxial stressstrain curve for concrete
When concrete is subjected to laterally confining pressure, the uniaxial compressive strength f
'
cc
and the
corresponding strain ε
'
cc
(Fig. 4) are much higher than those of unconfined concrete. The relations between f
'
cc
,
f
'
c
and between ε
'
cc
, ε
'
c
suggested by Mander, Priestley and Park (1988) and used in this investigation which are
l
f k
'
c
f
'
cc
f
1
+ = (2)
( )
'
c
f / f k 1
'
c
'
cc 2 l
+ ε = ε (3)
where
l
f is the laterally confining pressure. The k
1
and k
2
are constants and can be obtained from experimental
data. Typical values for k
1
and k
2
suggested by Richart, Brandtzaeg and Brown (1928) and used in this
investigation are 1 . 4
1
k = ,
1
k 5 2 k = .
Fig. 5 Linear DruckerPrager yield criterion for concrete
Because the concrete in the CFST is usually subjected to triaxial compressive stresses, the failure of concrete is
dominated by the compressive failure surface expanding with increasing hydrostatic pressure. Hence, a linear
DruckerPrager yield criterion G (Fig. 5) is used to model the yield surface of concrete, which is expressed as
0 d tan p t G = − β − = (4)
where
3 / ) ( p
3 2 1
σ + σ + σ − = ,
'
cc
f ] 3 / ) (tan 1 [ d β − =
238
(
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

− − + =
3
2
2
J 3
r
)
K
1
1 (
K
1
1
2
J 3
t ,
3 / 1
3
3
3
2
3
1
) S S S (
2
9
r
(
¸
(
¸
+ + =
and S
1
, S
2
, and S
3
are principal stress deviators. The constants K and β are material parameters determined from
experimental data. In the analysis, K = 0.8 and β = 20
o
are used (Wu, 2000).
The response of the concrete is modeled by an elasticplastic theory with associated flow and isotropic hardening
rule. When plastic deformation occurs, there should be a certain parameter to guide the expansion of the yield
surface. A commonly used approach is to relate the multidimensional stress and strain conditions to a pair of
quantities, namely, the effective stress f
c
and effective strain ε
c
, such that results obtained following different
loading paths can all be correlated by means of the equivalent uniaxial stressstrain curve. The stressstrain
relationship proposed by Saenz (1964) has been widely adopted as the uniaxial stressstrain curve for concrete
and it has the following form
3 2
)
'
cc
c
( R )
'
cc
c
)( 1 R 2 ( )
'
cc
c
)( 2
E
R R ( 1
c c
E
c
f
ε
ε
+
ε
ε
− −
ε
ε
− + +
ε
= (5)
ε
−
−
ε
−
σ
=
R
1
) 1 R (
) 1 R ( R
R
2
E
,
'
cc
f
'
cc c
E
E
R
ε
=
and R
σ
= 4, R
ε
= 4 may be used (Hu and Schnobrich, 1989). The initial modulus of elasticity of concrete E
c
is
highly correlated to its compressive strength and can be calculated with reasonable accuracy from the empirical
equation (ACI 1999)
MPa
'
cc
f 4700
c
E = (6)
In the analysis, Eq. (5) is taken as the equivalent uniaxial stressstrain curve for concrete when the concrete
strain
c
ε is less than
'
cc
ε (Fig. 4). When
'
cc c
ε > ε , a linear descending line is used to model the softening
behavior of concrete. If k
3
is defined as the material degradation parameter, the descending line is assumed to be
terminated at the point where
'
cc
f k
c
f
3
= and
'
cc
11
c
ε = ε .
Generally, the parameters f
l
and k
3
have to be provided to completely define the equivalent uniaxial stressstrain
relation. These two parameters apparently depend on the diametertotube thickness ratio (D/t or B/t),
crosssectional shape, and stiffening mean. Consequently, their appropriate values are determined by matching
the numerical results with experimental results by trial and error.
Fig. 6 Finite element mesh for CFST
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR CFST
Due to symmetry, only one eighth of the CFST is analyzed (Fig. 6) and symmetric boundary conditions are
enforced on the symmetric planes, which are u = 0 on the plane normal to x axis, w = 0 on the plane normal to z
axis and v = 0 on the bottom surface normal to y axis. The top surface of the column is fixed with u = w = 0 but
allows displacement to take place in y direction. The uniform compressive loading in y direction is applied to the
239
top surface of the column directly. In the finite element mesh, both the concrete core and the steel tube are
modeled by 27node solid elements (three degrees of freedom per node). For the SS section, the steel reinforcing
tie is modeled by 3node truss elements. The interface between the concrete and the steel tube is modeled by
special 9node interface elements. The interface elements allow the contact surfaces between the concrete and
the steel tube to remain closed or open but not to penetrate each other. In addition, the interface elements allow
friction to be developed on the contact surfaces. Based on the results of convergent studies (Wu, 2000), mesh
refinement has very little influence on the numerical results. Hence, the meshes shown in Fig. 6 are used through
out the analyses.
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
In this section, the experimental data from Schneider (1998) and Huang et al. (2002) are used to verify and
calibrate the proposed material model for CFST. For convenience, each specimen in the analysis has an
individual designation, involving two English letters followed by a series of numbers (Table 1). The first letter,
C or S, represents the crosssectional shape of the column being circular or square. The second letter, S or U,
denotes a column with or without stiffening ties, respectively. The three digital numbers following the English
letters denote the diametertotube thickness ratio (D/t or B/t). For stiffened CFST, the last three digital numbers
before the parentheses represent the centertocenter spacing between the steel reinforcing ties in terms of mm.
Finally, the number in the parentheses is the reinforcing bar number of the steel tie.
Table 1 Geometry and material properties of CFST
Column No.
B or D
(mm)
t
(mm)
B/t or
D/t
Length
(mm)
Tube
f
y
(MPa)
Concrete
'
c
f (MPa)
Tie
f
y
(MPa)
Note
CU022 140 6.5 22 602 313.0 23.80  S
CU040 200 5.0 40 840 265.8 27.15  H
CU047 140 3.0 47 602 285.0 28.18  S
CU070 280 4.0 70 840 272.6 31.15  H
CU100 300 3.0 100 900 232.0 27.23  S
CU150 300 2.0 150 840 341.7 27.23  H
SU017 127 7.47 17 609.6 347.0 23.80  S
SU022 127 5.67 22 609.6 312.0 23.80  S
SU029 127 4.34 29 609.6 357 26.00  S
SU040 200 5.0 40 840 265.8 27.15  H
SU070 280 4.0 70 840 272.6 31.15  H
SU150 300 2.0 150 840 341.7 27.27  H
SS040050(3) 200 5.0 40 840 265.8 27.15 410.9 H
SS040050(4) 200 5.0 40 840 265.8 27.15 386.0 H
SS040100(4) 200 5.0 40 840 265.8 27.15 386.0 H
SS070093(2) 280 4.0 70 840 272.6 30.49 588.6 H
SS070093(3) 280 4.0 70 840 272.6 30.49 615.3 H
SS070093(4) 280 4.0 70 840 272.6 29.18 511.1 H
SS070140(3) 280 4.0 70 840 272.6 29.84 615.3 H
SS070140(4) 280 4.0 70 840 272.6 28.52 511.1 H
SS070187(3) 280 4.0 70 840 272.6 29.18 615.3 H
SS070187(4) 280 4.0 70 840 272.6 29.84 511.1 H
SS150050(2) 300 2.0 150 840 341.7 24.00 735.8 H
SS150100(2) 300 2.0 150 840 341.7 25.21 735.8 H
S – CFST tested by Schneider; H – CFST tested by Huang et al.
Simulations of CFST with CU Section
The results of numerical simulations for CFST with CU section are given in Table 2 and the curves of axial force
versus axial strain for these columns are plotted against the experiment data in Fig. 7. Generally, the numerical
results show very good agreement with the experimental data. It can be observed that both the lateral confining
pressure f
l
and the material degradation parameter k
3
decrease with the increasing of diametertotube thickness
240
ratio D/t. When the D/t ratio is small (i.e., the tube thickness is relatively thick comparing with the diameter of
concrete), the steel tubes provide strong lateral support to the concrete core. As the result, the lateral confining
pressure f
l
usually has a very large value (say 8 MPa for CU022 column). In addition, the material degradation
parameter k
3
may be equal to 1 (e.g. CU022 and CU040), which means the concrete strength does not degrade
beyond the ultimate point. On the other hand, when the D/t ratio is large (i.e., the tube thickness is relatively thin
comparing with the diameter of concrete), the steel tubes provide weak lateral support to the concrete core. As
the result, the lateral confining pressure f
l
usually has a very small value (say 0.3 MPa for CU150 column). In
addition, the material degradation parameter k
3
may also have a lower value (say 0.6 for CU150 column). The
behaviors of CFST with CU section are highly influenced by the k
3
parameter of concrete. When k
3
= 1 (e.g.
CU022 and CU040), the axial forceaxial strain curves of the CFST do not show the degrading effect. However,
when 1 k
3
< , the axial forceaxial strain curves of the CFST do show the degrading effect. This degrading
phenomenon is more prominent with smaller value of k
3
.
Table 2 Results of numerical analyses
Failure Strength (kN)
Column No.
Experiment Analysis
Error
(%)
f
l
(MPa)
f
l
/f
y
k
3
CU022 1666.0 1628.0 2.30 8.00 0.0256 1.00
CU040 2016.9 2024.0 0.35 2.85 0.0107 1.00
CU047 893.0 860.0 3.70 1.30 0.0046 0.90
CU070 3025.2 3029.0 0.13 1.00 0.0037 0.70
CU100 2810.0 2835.0 2.80 0.97 0.0042 0.68
CU150 2607.6 2618.0 0.40 0.30 0.0009 0.60
SU017 2090.0 2083.0 0.30 8.00 0.0231 0.90
SU022 1242.0 1239.0 0.30 0.90 0.0029 0.70
SU029 1106.0 1130.0 2.10 0.00 0.0000 0.60
SU040 2311.5 2337.0 1.10 1.95 0.0073 0.50
SU070 3401.1 3518.0 3.44 0.00 0.0000 0.40
SU150 3061.5 3100.0 1.26 0.00 0.0000 0.40
SS040050(3) 2727.6 2741.0 0.49 3.00 0.0113 1.00
SS040050(4) 2902.6 2885.0 0.61 3.50 0.0132 1.00
SS040100(4) 2463.1 2476.0 0.52 2.50 0.0094 0.55
SS070093(2) 3744.5 3745.0 0.01 0.70 0.0026 0.40
SS070093(3) 3855.3 3862.0 0.17 1.00 0.0037 0.45
SS070093(4) 3807.3 3812.0 0.12 1.10 0.0040 0.45
SS070140(3) 3610.1 3609.0 0.03 0.45 0.0017 0.55
SS070140(4) 3596.3 3568.0 0.78 0.60 0.0022 0.50
SS070187(3) 3457.0 3465.0 0.23 0.46 0.0017 0.45
SS070187(4) 3507.1 3541.0 0.97 0.43 0.0016 0.55
SS150050(2) 3184.2 3213.0 0.90 0.45 0.0013 0.60
SS150100(2) 3104.7 3092.0 0.41 0.10 0.0003 0.30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
CU022
f
l
=8MPa, k
3
=1
(a)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
CU040
f
l
=2.85MPa, k
3
=1
(b)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
CU047
f
l
=1.3MPa, k
3
=0.9
(c)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
CU070
f
l
=1MPa, k
3
=0.7
(d)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
CU100
f
l
=0.97MPa, k
3
=0.68
(e)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
CU150
f
l
=0.3MPa, k
3
=0.6
(f)
Fig. 7 Axial force vs. axial strain for CFST with CU section
241
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110 120130 140 150
Simulation
Suggestion
f
l
/
f
y
D/t
(a)
CU
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120130 140 150
Simulation
Suggestion
k
3
D/t
CU
(b)
Fig. 8 f
l
/f
y
and k
3
vs. D/t for CFST with CU section
Figures 8a and 8b shows the values of f
l
/f
y
and k
3
versus D/t ratio for CFST with CU section, respectively. From
the results of numerical simulations, two empirical equations calibrated from the experimental data may be
suggested for f
l
/f
y
as follow:
) t / D ( 000832 . 0 043646 . 0
y
f / f − =
l
) 47 D/t 7 . 21 ( ≤ ≤ (7a)
(D/t) 0000357 . 0 006241 . 0
y
/f f − =
l
) 150 D/t 47 ( ≤ ≤ (7b)
In addition, another two empirical equations calibrated from the experimental data may be suggested for k
3
as follow:
1 k
3
= ) 40 D/t 7 . 21 ( ≤ ≤ (8a)
3491 . 1 (D/t) 010085 . 0 (D/t) 0000339 . 0 k
2
3
+ − = ) 150 D/t 40 ( ≤ ≤ (8b)
These suggested equations are also plotted in Figs. 8a and 8b for comparisons.
Fig. 9 Deformation shapes of CFST
Figures 9a and 9d show the deformation shapes of CU040 and CU150 columns at the values of axial
compressive strains very close to 0.025. It can be observed that these columns deform laterally in the radial
direction. This lateral deformation for column with larger D/t ratio is larger than that with smaller D/t ratio,
especially in the middle section of the column (bottom of the finite element mesh). Because the confining
pressure is uniformly applied to the concrete in all the radial directions, concrete core and steel tube contact
242
entirely to each other and no local buckling of tube takes place.
Simulations of CFST with SU Section
The results of numerical simulations for CFST with SU section are again given in Table 2 and the curves of axial
force versus axial strain for these columns are plotted against the experiment data in Fig. 10. Generally, the
numerical results show good agreement with the experimental data. Similar to the columns with CU section,
both the lateral confining pressure f
l
and the material degradation parameter k
3
decrease with the increasing of
diametertotube thickness ratio B/t. When the B/t ratio is small, f
l
and k
3
tend to be large due to the lateral
confinement from the steel tube. When the B/t ratio is large, f
l
and k
3
tend to be small due to the lake of lateral
support from the tube. Again, the behaviors of CFST with SU section are highly influenced by the k
3
parameter
of concrete. When k
3
is large (say 1 k 7 . 0
3
< < ), the axial forceaxial strain curves of the CFST do not show the
degrading effect significantly. However, when k
3
is small (say 7 . 0 k
3
< ), the axial forceaxial strain curves of
the CFST do show the degrading effect. This degrading phenomenon again is more prominent with smaller value
of k
3
.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
(a)
SU017
f
l
=8MPa, k
3
=0.9
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
SU022
(b)
f
l
=0.9MPa, k
3
=0.7
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
SU029
f
l
=0MPa, k
3
=0.6
(c)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
SU040
(d)
f
l
=1.95MPa, k
3
=0.5
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
SU070
(e)
f
l
=0MPa, k
3
=0.4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
(f)
SU150
f
l
=0MPa, k
3
=0.4
Fig. 10 Axial force vs. axial strain for CFST with SU section
Comparing Fig. 10 with Fig. 7, we can observe that for the same diametertotube thickness ratio, the values of
the lateral confining pressure f
l
/f
y
and the material degradation parameter k
3
for the CFST with CU section are
usually less than those for the CFST with SU section. This reflects the fact that confining pressure is less and
material degradation is greater for square columns than for circular ones. This is because for square columns, the
lateral confining pressure is not uniformly applied to the concrete surface. As the result, concrete core and steel
tube can not contact firmly to each other and local buckling of tube may take place. This phenomenon is more
easily to illustrate by examining the deformation shapes of the SU040 (Fig. 9b) and SU150 (Fig. 9e) columns
at the values of axial compressive strains very close to 0.025. It can be observed that due to local buckling,
several parts of the tube are separated from the concrete core. This reduces the confining pressure on concrete
significantly and causes the concrete strength to degrade easily. For columns with large B/t ratio (say SU150),
the lateral confining pressure f
l
may be dropped to zero and the material degradation parameter dropped to 0.4.
Comparing Fig. 9b with Fig. 9e, we can conclude that the SU CFST with large B/t ratios are more prone to have
local buckling than those with small B/t ratios.
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120130 140 150
Simulation
Suggestion
f
l
/
f
y
D/t
SU
(a)
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120130 140 150
Simulation
Suggestion
k
3
B/t
SU
(b)
Fig. 11 f
l
/f
y
and k
3
vs. B/t for CFST with SU section
243
Figures 11a and 11b show the values of f
l
/f
y
and k
3
versus B/t ratio for CFST with SU section, respectively.
From the results of numerical simulations, two empirical equations calibrated from the experimental data may be
suggested for f
l
/f
y
as follow:
(B/t) 001885 . 0 055048 . 0
y
/f f − =
l
) 2 . 29 B/t 17 ( ≤ ≤ (9a)
0
y
/f f =
l
) 150 B/t 2 . 29 ( ≤ ≤ (9b)
In addition, another two empirical equations calibrated from the experimental data may be suggested for k
3
as follow:
2722 . 1 (B/t) 02492 . 0 (B/t) 000178 . 0 k
2
3
+ − = ) 70 B/t 17 ( ≤ ≤ (10a)
4 . 0
3
k = ) 150 B/t 70 ( ≤ ≤ (10b)
These suggested equations are also plotted in Figs. 11a and 11b for comparisons.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
SS040050(3)
f
l
=3MPa, k
3
=1
(a)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
(b)
SS040050(4)
f
l
=3.5MPa, k
3
=1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
SS040100(4)
(c)
f
l
=2.5MPa, k
3
=0.55
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
(d)
SS070093(2)
f
l
=0.7MPa, k
3
=0.4
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
(e)
SS070093(3)
f
l
=1MPa, k
3
=0.45
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
(f)
SS070093(4)
f
l
=1.1MPa, k
3
=0.45
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
SS070140(3)
f
l
=0.45MPa, k
3
=0.55
(g)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
SS070140(4)
(h)
f
l
=0.6MPa, k
3
=0.5
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
(i)
SS070187(3)
f
l
=0.46MPa, k
3
=0.45
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
(j)
SS070187(4)
f
l
=0.43Mpa, k
3
=0.55
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
(k)
SS150050(2)
f
l
=0.45MPa, k
3
=0.6
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Experiment
Simulation
A
x
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
(
M
N
)
Axial strain
(l)
SS150100(2)
f
l
=0.1MPa, k
3
=0.3
Fig. 12 Axial force vs. axial strain for CFST with SS section
Simulations of CFST with SS Section
The results of numerical simulations for CFST with SS section are given in Table 2 and the curves of axial force
versus axial strain for these columns are plotted against the experiment data in Fig. 12. Generally, the numerical
results show good agreement with the experimental data. Similar to the columns with CU and SU sections, both
the lateral confining pressure f
l
and the material degradation parameter k
3
decrease with the increasing of
diametertotube thickness ratio B/t. Comparing Fig. 12e with Fig. 10e and Fig. 7d, we can observe that the
value of f
l
for SS070093(3) column is higher than that for SU070 column. This is because the use of
reinforcing ties prevents the local buckling of steel tube and enhances the lateral confining pressure of the square
tubes. However, the lateral confining pressure of the strengthened square column is still less than the circular one.
As the result, the material degradation parameter k
3
for columns with SS section would be higher than that for
columns with SU section but lower than that for columns with CU section.
244
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
80 100 120 140 160 180 200
#3 Bar
#4 Bar
f
l
(
M
P
a
)
Space of tie (mm)
(a)
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
80 100 120 140 160 180 200
#3 Bar
#4 Bar
k
3
Space of tie (mm)
(b)
Fig. 13 Influence of tie space and tie number on f
l
and k
3
for SS070 CFST
Figures 9c and 9f show the deformation shapes of the SS040050(3) and SS150050(2) columns at the values
of axial compressive strains very close to 0.025. It can be observed that the local buckling of tube is totally
prevented by the reinforcing ties not only for columns with small B/t ratio but also for columns with large B/t
ratio. Figure 13a plots f
l
versus tie spacing and tie number for SS070 columns. From the figure, it can be
concluded that the lateral confining pressure decreases with the increasing of tie space. In addition, with the
same tie spacing, the column having larger reinforcing tie number (larger diameter) would have larger lateral
confining pressure. Figure 13b plots k
3
versus tie spacing and tie number for SS070 columns. From the figure, it
can be concluded that as long as the reinforcing ties are used, the influences of tie space and bar number on k
3
are not significant.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, nonlinear finite element analyses of CFST with CU, SU and SS sections are analyzed. Based on the
numerical results, the following conclusions may be drawn:
(1) For CFST with CU section, the tubes can provide good confining effect to concrete especially when the
diameterthickness ratio is small. Local buckling of steel tube is not likely to occur.
(2) For CFST with SU section, the tubes do not provide too much confining effect to concrete especially when
the diameterthickness ratio is large. Local buckling of steel tube is very likely to take place.
(3) The confining effect of CFST with SS section is enhanced by the use of reinforcing ties especially when the
tie spacing is small and the tie number (or tie diameter) is large. Local buckling of steel tube is prevented by
the reinforcing tie and is not likely to occur.
(4) Both the lateral confining pressure f
l
and the material degradation parameter k
3
decrease with the increasing
of diametertotube thickness ratio (D/t or B/t). When the diametertotube thickness ratio is small, f
l
and k
3
tend to be large due to the lateral confinement from the steel tube. When the diametertotube thickness ratio
is large, f
l
and k
3
tend to be small due to the lake of lateral support from the tube.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research work was financially supported by the National Science Council, Republic of China under Grant
NSC 892711331920037.
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318 (1999), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 31899), American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
ASCE Task Committee on Concrete and Masonry Structure (1982), State of the Art Report on Finite Element Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete, ASCE, New York.
Boyd, F. P., Cofer, W. F., and McLean, D. (1995), “Seismic Performance of SteelEncased Concrete Column under Flexural
Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 3, 355365.
Bradford, M. A. (1996), “Design Strength of Slender ConcreteFilled Rectangular Steel Tubes,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol.
93, No. 2, 229235.
245
Furlong, R. W. (1967), “Strength of SteelEncased Concrete Beam Columns,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol.
93, No. ST5, 113124.
Furlong, R. W. (1974), “Concrete Encased Steel Columns  Design Tables,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol.
100, No. ST9, 18651882.
Ge, H. B., and Usami, T. (1992), “Strength of ConcreteFilled ThinWalled Steel Box Columns: Experiment,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No 1, 30363054.
Ge, H. B., and Usami, T. (1994), “Strength Analysis of ConcreteFilled ThinWalled Steel Box Columns,” Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 30, No. 3, 259281.
Hajjar, J. F., and Gourley, B. C. (1996), “Representation of ConcreteFilled Steel Tube CrossSection Strength,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 11, 13271336.
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. (2000), ABAQUS Theory Manual and User Manual, Version 5.8, Providence, Rhode
Island.
Hu, H.T., and Schnobrich, W. C. (1989), “Constitutive Modelling of Concrete by Using Nonassociated Plasticity,” Journal
of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 1, No. 4, 199216.
Huang, C. S., Yeh, Y.K., Liu, G.Y., Hu, H.T., Tsai, K. C., Weng, Y. T., Wang, S. H., and Wu, M.H. (2002), “Axial Load
Behavior of Stiffened Concretefilled Steel Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 9,
12221230.
Knowles, R. B., and Park, R. (1969), “Strength of Concrete Filled Steel Tubular Columns,” Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. ST12, 25652587.
Liang, Q. Q., and Uy, B. (2000), “Theoretical Study on the PostLocal Buckling of Steel Plates in ConcreteFilled Box
Column,” Computers and Structures, Vol. 75, No. 5, 479490.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988), “Theoretical StressStrain Model For Confined Concrete,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 8, 1988, 18041823.
Morino, S. (1998), “Recent Developments in Hybrid Structures in Japan  Research, Design and Construction,” Engineering
Structures, Vol. 20, No. 46, 336346.
Richart, F. E, Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L. (1928), A Study of the Failure of Concrete under Combined Compressive
Stresses, Bulletin 185, University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station, Champaign, Illinois.
Schneider, S. P. (1998), “Axial Loaded ConcreteFilled Steel Tubes,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124,
No. 10, 11251138.
Saenz, L. P. (1964), Discussion of “Equation for the stressstrain curve of concrete” by Desayi, P, and Krishnan, S, ACI
Journal, Vol. 61, 12291235.
Shams, M., and Saadeghvaziri, M. A. (1997), “State of the Art of ConcreteFilled Steel Tubular Columns,” ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 94, No. 5, 558571.
Uy, B. (1998), “Local and PostLocal Buckling of Concrete Filled Steel Welded Box Columns,” Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, Vol. 47, No. 12, 4772.
Wu, M.H. (2000), Numerical Analysis of Concrete Filled Steel Tubes Subjected to Axial Force, M.S. Thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Zhang, W., and Shahrooz, B. M. (1999), “Comparison between ACI and AISC for ConcreteFilled Tubular Columns,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 11, 12131223.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.