Assessment of current methods for the design
of composite columns in buildings
H.S. Saw, J.Y. Richard Liew

© All Rights Reserved

8 views

Assessment of Current Methods for the Design

Assessment of current methods for the design
of composite columns in buildings
H.S. Saw, J.Y. Richard Liew

© All Rights Reserved

- Buckling of Columns
- Night School 10 Session 7
- Column Calculation to EN1993
- C-2021.pdf
- DESIGN OF COLD FORMED STEEL STRUCTURES
- Column Buckling Design
- Staad.Foundation Isolated Footing Design
- Lifting Lug Design
- Rc-2 Midterm Exam Part 1
- 4_calculo_plastico
- Horz_CHS_Brace_double cover plate_Conns.xls
- Built Up Column_Channel
- IFahdah_Steel2
- Compression Member 2013
- Isolated Footing Uniaxial
- Gotluru Torsion Paper
- Mol Confort
- Buckling
- Lect05_Buckling of Columns.ppt
- LRFD Axially Loaded Compression Members

You are on page 1of 27

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

of composite columns in buildings

*

H.S. Saw, J.Y. Richard Liew

Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent,

Singapore 119260, Singapore

Abstract

This paper presents the design assessment of encased I-sections and concrete filled com-

posite columns based on the approaches given in Eurocode 4: Part 1.1, BS 5400: Part 5 and

AISC LRFD. This includes studies on the design parameters, comparison of the nominal

strength predicted by the three codes and comparison of the predicted strengths with the avail-

able test results. In some cases, results obtained from the above three codes may vary consider-

ably. This is because of the different design considerations adopted in these codes. However,

the design methods are found to be mostly conservative when compared with the test results.

Eurocode 4: Part 1.1 has major factors in its favour in terms of its comprehensiveness and

wide scope of application. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Buckling; Composite columns; Concrete filled; Encased section; Limit states; Steel-concrete

composite

1. Introduction

concrete encased steel section or a concrete filled hollow section. Some typical cross-

sections of double-symmetrical composite columns are shown in Fig. 1. Composite

columns have gained acceptance for high-rise buildings as an alternative to pure

reinforced concrete during the past decades. The advantages of using composite col-

umn are: (1) smaller cross-section and higher strength-to-weight ratio than a conven-

tional reinforced concrete member, (2) significant savings in material and construc-

E-mail address: cveljy@nus.edu.sg (J.Y.R. Liew)

0143-974X/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 9 7 4 X ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 6 2 - 0

122 H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

Nomenclature

Aa Area of steel section

Ac Area of concrete

Ar Area of reinforcement

As Area of reinforcement (EC4); Area of steel section (BS 5400)

Aw Web area of steel section

b Overall breadth of the composite column

c1,c2,c3 Numerical coefficients

cr Thickness of concrete cover

D, d Outer diameter of circular hollow steel section

Ea Modulus of elasticity of steel section

Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete for long term

Ecm Secant modulus of the concrete

Er Modulus of elasticity of reinforcement

Es Modulus of elasticity of reinforcement (EC4); Modulus of elasticity of steel

section (BS 5400)

Fy Characteristic strength of steel section

Fyr Characteristic strength of reinforcement

fcc Characteristic strength of concrete due to confinement effect

fck, f c Characteristic cylinder strength of concrete

fcu Characteristic cube strength of concrete

fry, fsk Nominal yield strength of reinforcement

fy Characteristic strength of steel section

h Overall width of the composite column

h1 Concrete width perpendicular to the plane of bending

h2 Concrete thickness in the plane of bending

Ia Second moment of area of steel section

Ic Second moment of area of concrete

Is Second moment of area of reinforcement (EC4); Second moment of area of

steel section (BS 5400)

le Effective length of column

M Moment capacity of column

Mu Ultimate moment capacity of column

N Axial load of column

Npl Plastic resistance of the composite column

Nu Squash load of column

rm Modified radius of gyration of steel shape, pipe or tubing in composite

columns

ry Radius of gyration of a member about its minor axis

S Plastic section modulus

t Web thickness

ac Strength coefficient of concrete

l Slenderness of column

ga Partial factor of safety for steel section

gc Partial factor of safety for concrete

gs Partial factor of safety for reinforcement

m Moment resistance ratio

w Density of concrete

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147 123

tion time, (3) inherent ductility and toughness for use in repeated and reversal loads,

(4) enhanced fire resistance characteristics when compared to plain steel, (5) higher

load carrying capacity due to the composite action of steel and concrete and con-

finement of concrete in the case of in-filled columns, and (6) higher rigidity for use

in lateral-load resisting systems.

Several commonly used methods, which are now available for designing com-

posite columns, include Eurocode 4: Part 1.1 [1] (to be referred to as EC4), BS

5400: Part 5 [2] (to be referred to as BS 5400), and AISC LRFD [3] (to be referred

to as LRFD). In the United States, design provisions for composite columns are

currently included in both the ACI-318 [4] and LRFD specifications. The concept

of applying LRFD to composite columns was first presented by Furlong in 1976 [5].

The method of EC4 was based on the work of Roik and Bergmann [6] and others,

while the recommendations given in the BS 5400 were developed by Basu and Som-

erville [7] and modified by Virdi and Dowling [8].

The aim of the present investigation is to assess the current methods for evaluating

the ultimate load behaviour of steelconcrete composite columns and to recommend

design guidelines for these columns. Major codes such as EC4, BS 5400 and LRFD

are studied and compared to investigate their differences. Typical designs were car-

ried out to determine the similarities and discrepancies of various codes. Discrep-

ancies in the predicted nominal strengths by the three codes were also highlighted.

Finally, conclusions are given and future research needs are identified.

A study performed by Liew et al. [9] shows that the use of EC4, BS 5400 and

LRFD for the design of composite columns does not necessarily converge to the

same result. This is because of the differences in load and resistance factors, design

parameters and other design considerations such as creep, eccentricity, etc. The fol-

lowing sub-sections will discuss and compare some of these parameters used in the

three codes.

124 H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

Table 1

Terms and specifications used in the three codes of practice for composite column design

Steel EC4 Fe 360 (235 N/mm2), Fe 430 (275 N/mm2) and Fe 510 (355

N/mm2) when thickness, t40 mm [3.2.2]

BS 5400 Grade 43 (275 N/mm2) or 50 (355 N/mm2), t16 mm

[11.1.2.1]

LRFD A36 (248 N/mm2), A50 (345 N/mm2), A55(379 N/mm2)

[I2.1(d)]

Concrete EC4 fck50 N/mm2 where fck is the concrete cylinder strength

[3.1.2.2]

BS 5400 fcu20 N/mm2 for concrete filled tubes

fcu25 N/mm2 for concrete encased sectionsa where

fcu=concrete cubic strength [11.1.2.2]

LRFD 20.7 N/mm2f c55.1 N/mm2 for normal weight concrete

f c27.6 N/mm2 for lightweight concrete

where f c=concrete cylinder strength [I2.1(c)]

Steel contribution ratio EC4 0.2d0.9, where d is the ratio of the contribution of the

steel section to total axial capacity. [4.8.3.1.(3)]

BS 5400 Encased steel sections: 0.15ac0.8

Hollow steel sections: 0.1ac0.8

where ac is the ratio of the concrete contribution to total

axial capacity [11.4.1]

LRFD Cross-sectional area of steel section 4% of total cross-

sectional area [I2.1(b)]

Limiting slenderness EC4 l2.0 about any axis of bending [4.8.3.1.(3)]

BS 5400 Ratio of effective length to least lateral dimension of

composite column should not exceed

30 for concrete encased sections

55 for concrete filled circular hollow sections

65 for concrete filled rectangular hollow sections. [11.1.5]

LRFD KL/r200, where KL is the effective length and r is the

radius of gyration of the section.

Steel reinforcement EC4 0.3%As/Ac4% for concrete encased columns

In concrete filled hollow sections normally no reinforcement

is required except for fire resistance [4.8.3.1.(3)]

BS 5400 For concrete encased columns: stirrups to be placed

throughout length of column, spacing not to exceed 200

mm. At least 4 longitudinal bars to be provided [11.3.9]

LRFD Not less than 0.007 in2 (0.178 mm2) of reinforcement per

inch (25.4 mm) of bar spacing. [I2.1b]

Local buckling EC4 d/t90e2for CHS of outside diameter d and thickness t

h/t52e for RHS of greater overall dimension h, thickness

tb/tf44e for partially encased I-sections of width b,

thickness tf

and e=(235/fy)1/2, fy is the yield strength of steel [4.8.2.4]

BS 5400 Minimum wall thickness, t for hollow sections are

tbs(fy/Es)1/2 for each face of width bs in RHS

tDe(fy/8Es)1/2for CHS of outside diameter De [11.1.2.1]

LRFD Minimum wall thickness, t for hollow sections are

tb(fy/Es)1/2 for each face of width b in RHS

tD(fy/8Es)1/2 for CHS of outside diameter D [I2.1(e)]

(continued on next page)

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147 125

Table 1

continued

Modulus of elasticity of EC4 From EC2, Ecm=9.5(fck+8)0.33, where Ecm is in kN/mm2 and

concrete fck is the 28 day concrete cylinder strength in N/mm2

[3.1.4.1]

BS 5400 450 times fcu [11.3.1]

LRFD w1.5(f c)0.5, where w is the unit weight of concrete

Longitudinal shear limits EC4 0.6 N/mm2 for fully encased I-sections

at steelconcrete interface 0.4 N/mm2 for concrete filled hollow sections

0.2 N/mm2 for flanges in partially encased I-sections

0 N/mm2 for webs in partially encased I-sections [4.8.2.7]

BS 5400 0.6 N/mm2 for encased sections

0.4 N/mm2 for hollow sections [11.1.3]

LRFD Accounted for with suitable detailing

Partial safety factor for EC4 Steel section: 1.1

material at ULS Concrete: 1.5

Steel reinforcement: 1.15

Shear connector: 1.25 [2.3.3.2]

BS 5400 Steel section: 1.1

Concrete: 1.5

Steel reinforcement: 1.15

Shear connector: 1.10 [4.2.1]

LRFD Compression: 1/0.85=1.18

Flexure: 1/0.9=1.11

Partial safety factor for EC4 1.35 Dead Load+1.5 Imposed Load [2.3.3.1]

load at ULS BS 5400 (1.051.20) Dead Load+(1.31.5) Imposed Load, Johnson

[12]

LRFD 1.20 Dead Load+1.6 Imposed Load [A4.1]

a

fcu of 20 and 25 N/mm2 will be equivalent to 16 and 20 N/mm2 cylinder strength, respectively,

assuming that concrete cylinder strength is 0.8 fcu.

Some of the terms and specifications used in the three codes for the design of

composite column are summarised in Table 1. The relevant clause for each item is

given in brackets. The items of comparison include the grades of steel and concrete,

steel contribution ratio, limiting slenderness, steel reinforcement ratio, local buckling,

modulus of elasticity of concrete, longitudinal shear limits and partial factors of

safety for material and load at ultimate limit state.

The modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec, is the main material property that is

defined rather differently by the three codes when calculating the column slenderness

126 H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

Table 2

Recommended design values for concrete modulus of elasticity

BS 5400 450 fcu 670 fcu

LRFD w1.5f cb w1.5f c

a

Ec should be modified accordingly if conditions of long term effect are satisfied.

b

w is the unit weight of concrete in lb/ft3, f c is the concrete cylinder strength in ksi and Ec gives

result in ksi.

c

This value is used to evaluate the test results with no factor of safety.

Table 3

Modulus elasticity of concrete (kN/mm2) evaluated using different codes

BS 5400 11.3 13.5 16.7 20.3 22.5 24.8 27.0

LRFD 21.5 24.1 26.4 28.5 30.5 32.3 34.0

670 fcu 16.8 20.1 24.8 30.2 33.5 36.9 40.2

ratio. This is because Ec has no unique value, and it decreases as the strain increases.

The recommended values for Ec given by the three codes are shown in Table 2.

Table 3 gives the values of Ec obtained for various grades of concrete based on

the recommendation of Table 2. The concrete used is the normal weight concrete

of density 2400 kg/m3. The grade of concrete is referred by either cylinder or cube

strength. For example, C25/30 refers to cylinder strength=25 N/mm2 and cube

strength=30 N/mm2.

In the calculation of the modulus elasticity of concrete, the variation can be due

to the inclusion of a creep factor for Ec and/or use of cracked section, with or without

limitation on the radius of gyration.

The values of Ec evaluated using EC4 (Table 4) are slightly higher since creep

effect is considered separately. For BS 5400, the values of Ec are relatively low for

lower grades of concrete because the creep effect is considered and it is based on

uncracked concrete section in the analysis. However, it is observed that at higher

grades of concrete, the values of Ec obtained using BS 5400 are larger than EC4.

The LRFD gives significantly higher values since a cracked section is used in the

analysis. In EC4, the value of Ec is used to calculate the effective elastic flexural

stiffness of the cross-section and Ecm is a better measure of the modulus of elasticity

of concrete under short term loading.

From the comparison study shown in Table 3, it is not possible to conclude which

code gives a more conservative prediction of Ec. This is because results of a true

comparison would depend on which strut curves are being used and on other details

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147 127

Table 4

Slenderness ratio given in the three codes of practice

Concrete encased sections Concrete filled sections

EC4

le Aafy+0.85 Acfck+Asfsk

p EaIa+0.8 EcmIc/1.35+EsIs 1/2

le Aafy+Acfck+Asfsk

p EaIa+0.8 EcmIc/1.35+EsIs

1/2

BS 5400

le Asfy/gs+Acfcu/gc+Arfry/gr

p EsIs+EcIc+ErIr 1/2

le Asf y/gs+Acfcc/gc

p EsIs+EcIc+ErIr 1/2

a

LRFD 1/2 1/2

Ar Ac Ar Ac

Fy+0.7Fyr +0.6f c Fy+Fyr +0.85 f c

le As As le As As

rmp

E+0.2 Ec

Ac

As

rmp

E+0.4 Ec

Ac

As

a

This expression applies only for circular hollow sections. As for rectangular hollow sections, the

expression is the same as the concrete encased sections.

of the methods. Complete designs would have to be done for a wide range of situ-

ations before any conclusions could be drawn.

The definition of slenderness ratio in the three codes of practice is shown in Table

4. It is important to note that the value of Ec (see Table 2) used in evaluating the

column slenderness ratio in EC4 and LRFD does not include a factor of safety.

However, in BS 5400, a partial factor of safety is included in the calculation of the

column slenderness ratio. If the factored value of Ec is used, there will be a reduction

in the column slenderness ratio, which will in turn lead to an increase in the load

carrying capacity.

The slenderness ratio in LRFD is expressed in terms of the modified radius of

gyration, rm. For an encased section, the modified radius of gyration is defined as

the larger of the radius of gyration of the steel section or 30% of the thickness of

the gross composite section (the radius of gyration of a solid rectangular is about

30% of its depth). The steel shape and the concrete portion of the composite sections

both contribute to flexural resistance. If the steel dominates, the radius of gyration

of the steel section should be used in calculating rm. On the other hand, if the

reinforced concrete section dominates the flexural resistance, the radius of gyration

of the concrete section should be used for calculating the slenderness parameter. In

the absence of a more rigorous method, LRFD recommends that the larger of the

128 H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

radius of gyration values for steel or concrete be used in calculating the slenderness

index l/rm.

Once the member slenderness of a composite column is determined, the com-

pression resistance of the composite column may be evaluated. The column buckling

curves, which are essentially the same in both the ECCS [10] and the British Stan-

dards, are based on an extensive study by Beer and Schulz [11]. Their investigation

highlighted the effect which the shape of the structural steel section and its method

of fabrication have on its ultimate load carrying capacity. This is a result of the

differences in geometry of cross-section, magnitude and distribution of residual

stresses and the member initial out-of-straightness. These curves are identified as a,

b and c and they have been found to apply equally well to composite columns.

As for LRFD, only one strut curve is used and the position of the strut curve is

close to the strut curve a, with a slightly smaller value for slenderness parameter, l

less than 1 and a slightly larger value for l greater than 1 (see Fig. 2).

Under sustained loading, creep of the concrete causes an increase in the lateral

deflection of a composite column and a reduction in its strength and stiffness.

EC4 is the only code that treats the effect of long term loading separately. The

influence of creep and shrinkage is taken into account, if both the eccentricity of

loading is less than twice the cross-section dimension and the slenderness, l is more

than the limiting values given in Table 4.6 of EC4. A more accurate account on the

effective modulus of elasticity of concrete under long term loading is given in the

code by considering the portion of the design load that is permanent. If half of the

design load is permanent, this will reduce the effective elastic modulus of concrete

to 75% of its short term value.

In BS 5400, design strengths are obtained by dividing the characteristic (or

nominal) strengths by gc. At the ultimate limit state, gc=1.5 is used for concrete,

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147 129

which gives design strengths in axial compression and bending of 0.55 fcu and 0.45

fcu, respectively. These values have been further reduced to 0.45 fcu and 0.4 fcu to

account for the influence of creep. No other allowance is made for creep in columns.

In LRFD, influence of creep is considered in the expressions for effective stiffness,

Em, when the column is subjected to sustained compressive loading. The influence

of creep as well as the influence of concrete cracking have been accommodated

adequately by the use of 40 percent of the nominal initial stiffness of confined con-

crete inside steel tubes, and only 20 percent of that stiffness for unconfined concrete.

This is reflected in the value of c3 given in LRFD (Section I2-2). The influence of

creep is usually small if a large area of steel is being used. Hence, every composite

column designed in accordance to LRFD must have a structural steel area not less

than 4 percent of the gross cross-section area of the column.

For composite column with concrete filled circular sections, the confinement effect

of concrete increases the concrete resistance, but at the same time reduces the axial

resistance of the steel section.

In EC4, the reduction of concrete strength by 0.85 may be omitted for concrete

filled composite columns since the development of concrete strength is better achi-

eved due to protection against the environment and against splitting of concrete. The

effect of confinement is considered when both the relative slenderness, l is less than

0.5 and the eccentricity of the normal force does not exceed the value d/10, in which

d is the outer diameter of the circular hollow section. In BS 5400, the limitation of

the confinement effect is less restrictive than EC4. It is not dependent on the eccen-

tricity of the axial loading and the confinement effect is neglected when l is greater

than 1.0. For most practical columns, l=1 corresponds to a length to diameter ratio

between 24 and 29, but for simplicity, BS 5400 set the limit of l/d to 25. In LRFD,

no confinement effect of concrete is taken into account for design of concrete filled

circular hollow sections.

doubly symmetric sections (Section C.I4 of LRFD) is given as follows:

1 h2 AwFy

MuSFy (h22cr)ArFyr

3

A F

2 1.7f ch1 w y (1)

This formula is based on the plastic moment capacity of the steel section, the longi-

tudinal reinforcement, and the concrete that is compressed along the edge of the

cross-section. It is assumed that at least 1/3 of the longitudinal bars in a cross-section

can be considered concentrated in a position located cr from the edges of the cross-

section. In order to obtain the third term of Eq. (1), the web of shapes encased in

concrete is considered to be tension reinforcement for a concrete cross-section with

130 H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

a flexural depth taken as half the overall thickness in the plane of bending. It is

apparent that when bending occurs about the minor axis, the web of the steel shape

does not contribute to the plastic section modulus used in the first term of Eq. (1).

Even though the web contributes a minor portion of the major axis section modulus,

at ultimate moment about the major axis of encased shapes, the neutral axis is not

at mid depth but is closer to the compression edge as concrete participated in resisting

flexure. The resulting increase in the distance between total internal tension and

compression forces is more than sufficient to offset the apparent double use of web

area as a part of the term S and as a part of the third term in Eq. (1). The side wall

regions for round or rectangular filled tubes may permit a similar term for Aw, but

no recommendation can be proposed at this time. It is conservative to use Aw=0 for

filled pipe. This explains the relatively smaller flexural resistance in LRFD for con-

crete filled circular composite sections as compared to BS 5400 and EC4.

The expression given in BS 5400 for the flexural resistance of a concrete filled

circular composite section is given as:

Mu0.91 Sfy (10.01 m) (2)

where m=(100/S)[t(Dt)2 (q1 sin q1+cos q11)+0.25r (D2t)3 {(cos 3q1)/30.25

sin q1 (psin 2q12q1)}] and other symbols are as defined in BS 5400. The value

of m is represented graphically in Figure 100.5 of BS 5400, Appendix C.

The derivation of Eq. (2) is given in Appendix C of Johnson [12]. This formula

is obtained based on the integration of a small elemental section of the circular cross-

section. The process is rigorous but more exact as compared to EC4 and LRFD.

However, it must be noted that a safety factor has already been incorporated in

deriving this formula.

For EC4, the moment resistance of the concrete filled circular composite section

can be approximately calculated using the formula for rectangular sections.

EC4, BS 5400 and LRFD methods. All the partial factors of safety for materials

used in EC4, BS 5400 and the resistance factor used in the LRFD are set to unity.

This will give an unbiased comparison of the resistance predicted by the three

methods since each method has its own resistance factors which are used with the

corresponding load factors.

For this study, the column is assumed to be pin supported at both ends and it is

loaded symmetrically, i.e. the top and bottom are subject to the same axial force and

bending moment causing a single curvature bending. The modulus of elasticity of

concrete is evaluated according to each code of practice (refer to Table 2). As for

the calculation of long term modulus of elasticity of concrete in EC4, it is assumed

that 75% of the design load acting on the column is permanent.

The nominal or characteristics material strength used in the comparison study

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147 131

are: Concrete: fc=C25/30, r=2400 kg/m3; Steel: fy=355 kN/mm2, E=210 kN/mm2;

Reinforcement: fry=460 kN/mm2, E=210 kN/mm2.

The dimensions of the composite section used in the comparison study are:

Fully encased steel section: Steel section: UC 254254107, Concrete dimension:

400400 mm; Reinforcement: 412 mm, one at each corner, 150 mm from axes

of symmetry.

Partially encased steel section: Steel section: UC 254254107; Reinforcement:

48 mm, one at each corner, 85 mm from axes of symmetry.

Concrete filled rectangular hollow section: Steel section: 200300 mm and 10

mm thick; Reinforcement: nil.

Concrete filled circular hollow section: Steel section: outer diameter 406.4 mm

and 8.8 mm thick; Reinforcement: nil.

The evaluations of the nominal axial capacity and moment interaction curve based

on the three methods are performed. The moment interaction curve of EC4 has been

modified such that the boundary of the imperfection moment has been subtracted

from the outer interaction curve and a factor of 0.9 is multiplied to m. In the figures,

the base resistances, Nu and Mu are values calculated in accordance with EC4. Hence,

the M/Mu value computed from the method of BS 5400 and LRFD does not converge

to unity for N/Nu=0.

3.1. Axial capacity

Figs. 36 compare the nominal axial resistance of the four types of composite

columns evaluated using the three different codes. The resistances predicted by each

method are compared relatively to one another.

132 H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

The comparison studies show that there is a considerable difference in the axial

resistance of the encased composite columns (see Figs. 3 and 4). At low slenderness

ratio, EC4 gives the highest value, followed by LRFD and BS 5400. The level portion

of BS 5400 is due to the reduction factor of 0.85 used for axially loaded columns

with lex/h and ley/b12. For slender columns (lex/h or ley/b12), BS 5400 requires

that the axial load acts at an eccentricity value of 0.03b. It is noticed that at a slender-

ness ratio of about 15, the long term effect becomes significant in the EC4 approach,

thereby reducing the axial capacity of the column. It is interesting to note that the

axial capacity of LRFD becomes larger than EC4 and BS 5400 as the slenderness

ratio increases. This may be due to the strut curves used and also the difference in

formula used for evaluating the slenderness in the LRFD approach.

Among the four types of composite columns, the concrete filled rectangular com-

posite section gives the least discrepancies (see Fig. 5). Both EC4 and BS 5400 use

strut curve a for rectangular hollow sections. For LRFD, the column curve is close

to strut curve a of EC4, with a slightly smaller value for relative slenderness less

than 1 and a slightly larger value for relative slenderness greater than 1. This may

explain why the axial capacity of LRFD becomes larger than EC4 and BS 5400 as

the slenderness increases.

For concrete filled circular composite sections (see Fig. 6), the discrepancies in

the axial capacity are due mainly to the consideration of the confinement effects. It

is important to note that BS 5400 gives the highest increase in strength due to con-

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147 133

134 H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

Fig. 7. Interaction curves for fully encased composite column bending about the major axis.

Fig. 8. Interaction curves for fully encased composite column bending about the minor axis.

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147 135

Fig. 9. Interaction curves for partially encased composite column bending about the major axis.

Fig. 10. Interaction curves for partially encased composite column bending about the minor axis.

136 H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

Fig. 11. Interaction curves for concrete filled rectangular composite column bending about the major

axis.

finement effect (except for the portion due to the reduction factor of 0.85) and this

effect is ignored at a slenderness ratio much higher than the EC4 method.

For encased sections, the three methods show considerable discrepancies in the

interaction curves (see Figs. 713) and the discrepancies are more distinct for minor

axis bending. At low slenderness ratio, EC4 gives the highest capacity. However,

as the slenderness ratio increases, the capacity decreases due to the effect of long

term loading. The level portion of the BS 5400 is due to the reduction factor that

allows for construction tolerances. It is noticed that when the slenderness ratio

increases, the capacity of LRFD decreases less significantly as compared to BS 5400

and EC4. For bending about the minor axis, the capacity of LRFD is even higher

than BS 5400 and EC4. One possible explanation for this is the use of different strut

curves. For encased sections, both EC4 and BS 5400 use strut curve b for bending

about the major axis and strut curve c for bending about the minor axis. However,

for LRFD, only one strut curve is used and the position of this strut curve is higher

than the strut curves b and c (Fig. 2).

The interaction curves of the concrete filled rectangular composite section are in

reasonably good agreement with one another (Figs. 11 and 12). At low slenderness

ratio, the strength curves of EC4 are higher than BS 5400 and LRFD in both the

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147 137

Fig. 12. Interaction curves for concrete filled rectangular composite column bending about the minor

axis.

major and minor axes. This is because of the inclusion of point E in the interaction

curve (see Figure 4.12 of EC4). For the evaluation of relative slenderness, both EC4

and BS 5400 use strut curve a which is close to the strut curve of LRFD (see Fig.

2). This may explain the close proximity of the interaction curve. Moreover, the

effect of long term loading is not considered in EC4 as the limiting conditions are

not satisfied.

For concrete filled circular composite sections (see Fig. 13), the three methods

show substantial discrepancies. The capacity of LRFD is always the lowest because

no confinement effect is considered for the axial capacity and also a simplified for-

mula which is highly conservative for circular sections is used for the evaluation of

the moment capacity. As for BS 5400, a more rigorous approach is used for the

evaluation of moment capacity of the circular sections. This gives rise to a higher

value than EC4 and LRFD.

The predicted column strength based on EC4, BS 5400 and LRFD are compared

with the test results of SSRC Task Group 20 [13] and Shakir et al. [14]. In this

comparison, both the axially loaded and eccentrically loaded fully encased, concrete

filled circular and rectangular composite columns are considered.

In order to compare the predicted strength with the test results, the material partial

138 H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

Fig. 13. Interaction curves for concrete filled circular composite columns.

safety factors of both steel and concrete are taken to be equal to unity. It should be

noted that in the method of BS 5400, the maximum compressive strength of concrete

is taken as 0.67 fcu (instead of 0.45 fcu) for evaluating the squash load and 0.6 fcu

(instead of 0.4 fcu) for evaluating the ultimate moment.

The expression for the modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec used in the prediction

of experimental results is given in the last column of Table 2, with the partial safety

factor of concrete taken as unity. The modulus of elasticity of steel used for the

calculation is 200 kN/mm2 (29000 ksi) as in the test performed by SSRC Task Group

20 [13] and 205 kN/mm2 by Shakir et al. [14].

In this study, the initial out-of-straightness of the column is assumed to be in the

form of a half sine curve. The amplification factor for the moment can be approxi-

mated by 1/(1P/Pe) where P is the applied load and Pe is the Euler buckling load

of the column [15]. This amplification factor is used for the analysis of second order

moment in BS 5400 for eccentrically load columns since guidance for calculating

the second order moment is not given in the code. For EC4 and LRFD, the method

given in each code for the analysis of the second order moment are used. Concrete

reinforcement is not included in the calculation since it is not mentioned in the above

two references.

Table 5

Comparison of predicted and measured axial capacity of a fully encased composite column, SSRC Task Group 20 [13]a

Section (mmmm) hc (mm) bc (mm) fy fc (N/mm2) Le (m) Test EC4 (kN) BS 5400 (kN) LRFD (kN)

(N/mm2) (kN)

127114UB 29.76 177.8 165.1 248 C18/22.5 0.229 1566 1332(1.18) 1127*(1.39) 1215(1.29)

1.168 1370 1228(1.12) 1038*(1.32) 1182(1.16)

2.083 1366 1023(1.34) 1013(1.35) 1111(1.23)

2.997 1281 697(1.84) 779(1.64) 1008(1.27)

3.886 1027 500(2.05) 593(1.73) 886(1.16)

203152 UB 52.09 254.0 203.2 248 C18/22.5 2.134 2544 1964(1.30) 1657*(1.54) 2054(1.24)

304.8 254.0 3229 2453(1.32) 2077*(1.55) 2331(1.39)

355.6 304.8 3807 3010(1.26) 2545*(1.50) 2674(1.42)

Average (1.43) (1.50) (1.27)

a

* Denotes values multiplied by 0.85 according to BS 5400, Clause 11.3.2.1. Figures in brackets represent test/predicted load ratio.

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

139

140

Table 6

Comparison of predicted and measured axial capacity of a concrete filled circular composite column, SSRC Task Group 20 [13]a

D (mm) t (mm) As (cm2) fy (N/mm2) fc (N/mm2) Le (m) Is (cm4) Test (kN) EC4 (kN) BS 5400 LRFD (kN)

(kN)

215.9 4.09 27.2 292 C22.9/27.5 2.22 1526.8 1650 1489(1.11) 1267*(1.30) 1364(1.21)

C30.0/37.0 2264 1697(1.33) 1403*(1.61) 1543(1.47)

6.00 39.6 392 C22.9/27.5 2180.7 2442 2136(1.14) 2010*(1.21) 2025(1.21)

350 C30.0/37.0 2869 2199(1.30) 1981*(1.45) 2055(1.40)

120.9 3.76 13.84 312 C21.1/26.1 1.05 237.6 721 644(1.12) 614*(1.17) 585(1.23)

2.31 636 530(1.20) 493(1.29) 491(1.30)

5.53 20.0 343 C21.1/26.1 1.05 334.3 1010 876(1.15) 881*(1.15) 817(1.24)

C24.2/29.2 1.05 1090 901(1.21) 893*(1.22) 840(1.30)

95.0 3.65 10.5 350 C25.0/30.0 1.37 109.4 667 461(1.45) 459(1.45) 429(1.55)

1.42 583 457(1.28) 449(1.30) 425(1.37)

1.98 529 390(1.36) 371(1.43) 368(1.44)

Average (1.24) (1.33) (1.34)

a

* Denotes values multiplied by 0.85 according to BS 5400, Clause 11.3.2.1. Figures in brackets represent test/predicted load ratio. D is the outer diameter

of the circular sections.

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

Table 7

Comparison of predicted and measured axial capacity of short concrete filled rectangular composite column, Shakir et al. [14]a

Section RHS As (cm2) Ac (cm2) fy fc (N/mm2) Le (m) Test EC4 (kN) BS 5400 (kN) LRFD (kN)

(N/mm2) (kN)

120805 18.55 72.60 357.5 C32.9/41.6 0.2 850 902(0.94) 736*(1.15) 863(0.98)

18.27 72.80 341.0 C33.5/42.6 0.2 900 867(1.04) 706*(1.27) 828(1.09)

18.27 72.80 341.0 C36.2/46.2 0.2 920 887(1.04) 721*(1.27) 844(1.09)

18.66 72.40 362.5 C33.4/42.4 0.2 950 918(1.03) 750*(1.27) 879(1.08)

18.66 73.40 362.5 C32.4/40.8 0.2 955 914(1.04) 746*(1.28) 876(1.09)

1501005 22.39 121.40 346.7 C36.0/46.0 0.1 1370 1213(1.13) 978*(1.40) 1147(1.19)

0.2 1210 1213(1.00) 978*(1.24) 1145(1.06)

22.39 120.00 346.7 C36.2/46.2 0.1 1340 1211(1.11) 976*(1.37) 1145(1.17)

0.2 1200 1211(0.99) 976*(1.23) 1143(1.05)

22.60 120.60 340.0 C36.6/46.6 0.1 1300 1210(1.07) 973*(1.34) 1143(1.14)

0.2 1190 1210(0.98) 973*(1.22) 1141(1.04)

22.60 120.10 340.0 C37.2/47.2 0.1 1320 1215(1.09) 976*(1.35) 1148(1.15)

0.2 1200 1215(0.99) 976*(1.23) 1146(1.05)

Average (1.03) (1.28) (1.09)

a

* Denotes values multiplied by 0.85 according to BS 5400, Clause 11.3.2.1. Figures in brackets represent test/predicted load ratio.

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

141

142 H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

Tables 57 show the comparison of the predicted and measured axial capacity of

a fully encased, concrete filled circular and rectangular composite columns.

For axially loaded columns, when the slenderness ratios (lex/h and ley/b) are smaller

than 12, BS 5400 requires that a reduction factor of 0.85 be applied to the ultimate

load in accordance with Clause 11.3.2.1 of BS 5400.

It should be noted that in EC4, the effect of long term loading (creep and

shrinkage) is taken into account. Therefore at high slenderness ratio, the ratio of the

test/predicted strength becomes larger. However, this long term effect is not con-

sidered in the methods of BS 5400 and LRFD.

The comparison studies show that the predicted results are generally lower than

the test results. For fully encased composite sections (see Table 5), LRFD gives the

closest prediction with an average of 27% lower than the test results and BS 5400

gives the most conservative with an average of 50% lower than the test results.

Table 6 shows that for concrete filled circular composite sections, EC4 gives the

closest prediction to the test results, followed by BS 5400 and LRFD. They are on

the average about 24%, 33% and 34% lower than the test results respectively.

For concrete filled rectangular composite sections (see Table 7), EC4 and LRFD

give very close prediction to the test results with BS 5400 giving a slightly lower

prediction. EC4 and LRFD are about 3% and 9% lower than the test results, respect-

ively, with BS 5400 on the average about 24% lower. The high (test/predicted) ratio

of BS 5400 is because of the reduction factor of 0.85 being applied to the failure load.

Tables 8 and 9 show the comparison of the predicted and measured strengths

of uniaxially loaded fully encased and concrete filled circular composite columns,

respectively. Table 10 shows the comparison of results for biaxially loaded rectangu-

lar composite columns. In these studies, second order analysis is used to calculate

maximum moment in predicting the strength of eccentrically loaded columns.

Table 8 shows that for fully encased composite sections, LRFD gives the closest

prediction, on the average of 23% lower than the test results, followed by EC4 and

BS 5400 which are on average 28% and 34% lower than the test results, respectively.

For concrete filled circular composite sections (see Table 9), the average ratio of

the test/predicted strength is much higher than unity. BS 5400 gives the closest

prediction to the test results, followed by EC4 and LRFD. They are on average about

16%, 57% and 114% lower than the test results, respectively. The large difference

in the LRFD (test/predicted) values is attributed to the confinement effect of concrete

which is not considered in the design and also to the usage of a more simplified and

conservative formula in the calculation of the moment resistance.

For concrete filled rectangular composite sections (see Table 10), both EC4 and

BS 5400 are on average about 17% lower than the test results, while LRFD is about

32% lower.

Overall, the average test/predicted values from Tables 510 show that the pre-

Table 8

Comparison of predicted and measured eccentrically loaded concrete encased section, SSRC Task Group 20[13]a

Section hc (mm) bc (mm) fy (N/mm2) fc (N/mm2) Le (m) ey (cm) Test (kN) EC4 (kN) BS 5400 LRFD (kN)

(mmmm) (kN)

127114UB 177.8 165.1 232 C19.3/24.1 2.083 1.91 716 585(1.22) 525(1.36) 595(1.20)

29.76

2.03 747 566(1.32) 511(1.46) 580(1.29)

0.726 1.91 898 876(1.03) 801(1.12) 660(1.36)

2.03 1014 856(1.18) 779(1.30) 642(1.58)

2.54 738 740(1.00) 698(1.06) 578(1.28)

1.156 1.27 996 932(1.07) 863(1.15) 753(1.32)

729 701(1.04) 647(1.13) 566(1.29)

2.083 2.54 627 504(1.24) 458(1.37) 524(1.20)

2.997 1.27 716 479(1.49) 464(1.54) 612(1.17)

2.54 529 367(1.44) 364(1.45) 469(1.13)

3.886 2.54 440 285(1.54) 285(1.54) 408(1.08)

3.81 347 236(1.47) 244(1.42) 340(1.02)

5.08 329 205(1.60) 215(1.53) 293(1.12)

Average (1.28) (1.34) (1.23)

a

Figures in brackets represent test/predicted load ratio.

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

143

144

Table 9

Comparison of predicted and measured eccentrically loaded concrete filled hollow circular section, SSRC Task Group 20[13]a

D (mm) t (mm) As (cm2) fy (N/mm2) fc (N/mm2) Le (m) e (cm) Test (kN) EC4 (kN) BS 5400 LRFD (kN)

(kN)

127.0 2.34 9.16 289.6 C35.2/40.2 1.067 1.55 569 458(1.24) 482(1.18) 276(2.06)

2.36 534 376(1.42) 407(1.31) 220(2.42)

3.99 400 224(1.79) 309(1.29) 157(2.55)

4.50 351 200(1.76) 288(1.22) 144(2.44)

5.56 307 165(1.86) 251(1.22) 123(2.50)

114.8 2.4 8.45 331.0 C23.4/28.4 1.067 1.32 374 338(1.11) 377(0.99) 252(1.48)

4.32 240 185(1.30) 223(1.08) 133(1.80)

13.9 89 59(1.51) 99(0.90) 54(1.65)

114.8 3.58 12.5 331 C28.8/35.4 1.067 3.07 436 361(1.38) 370(1.18) 207(2.11)

6.05 302 188(1.61) 254(1.19) 138(2.19)

8.18 262 140(1.87) 208(1.26) 111(2.36)

17.6 129 66(1.95) 117(1.10) 61(2.11)

Average (1.57) (1.16) (2.14)

a

Figures in brackets represent test/predicted load ratio. D is the outer diameter of the circular sections.

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

Table 10

Comparison of predicted and measured biaxially loaded concrete filled rectangular composite column, Shakir et al. [14]a

SectionRHS As(cm2) Ac(cm2) fy(N/mm2) fc(N/mm2) ex(mm) ey(mm) Test(kN) EC4(kN) BS LRFD(kN)

5400(kN)

18.27 72.80 341.0 C33.5/42.6 12 8 348.0 293(1.19) 272(1.28) 252(1.38)

18.27 72.80 341.0 C36.2/46.2 42 28 198.5 177(1.12) 189(1.05) 158(1.26)

18.66 72.40 362.5 C33.4/42.4 24 40 206.8 173(1.20) 179(1.16) 164(1.26)

18.66 73.40 362.5 C32.4/40.8 60 16 209.8 192(1.09) 196(1.07) 168(1.25)

1501005 22.39 121.40 346.7 C36.0/46.0 0 0 1003.0 789(1.27) 800(1.25) 752(1.33)

22.39 120.00 346.7 C36.2/46.2 15 10 596.2 519(1.15) 465(1.28) 413(1.44)

22.60 120.60 340.0 C36.6/46.6 45 30 329.2 310(1.06) 319(1.03) 752(1.27)

22.60 120.10 340.0 C37.2/47.2 75 50 254.6 215(1.18) 254(1.00) 194(1.31)

Average (1.06) (1.17) (1.32)

a

Figures in brackets represent test/predicted load ratio. The true length of the column is 2.74 m and the effective length of the column in the major and

minor axes are 3.21 m and 2.94 m, respectively.

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

145

146 H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147

dicted column strengths using the three methods are on the conservative side and

they are in reasonable agreement with the test results.

The comparisons and conclusions given in this paper are based on a limited range

of published experimental data. Within the present scope of work and investigation

carried out, the following conclusions may be made:

1. The approach in BS 5400 gives a higher increase in concrete strength due to the

confinement effect of concrete at low slenderness ratio as compared to EC4.

2. There is a marked difference between EC4 and BS 5400 in the critical slenderness

parameter, l, above which the confinement effects are ignored. In EC4, the con-

finement effects are ignored when l is less than 0.5, whereas in BS 5400, the

confinement effects are ignored when l is less than 1.0.

3. For encased composite sections, the axial capacity obtained by LRFD is higher

than EC4 and BS 5400. This may be due to the strut curve used in LRFD which

is above that of EC4 and BS 5400.

4. The column interaction curves of concrete filled rectangular hollow sections have

the least discrepancies among the three codes of practice. One possible reason is

the close proximity of the strut curves used in the three codes.

5. For concrete encased circular composite sections, the capacity obtained by LRFD

is always the lowest because no confinement effect is considered for the axial

capacity and also a simplified formula is used for the evaluation of the moment

capacity which is highly conservative for circular sections.

6. The predicted column strengths using the three methods are on the conservative

side and are in reasonable agreement with the available test results.

7. The method of EC4 is recommended because it covers a wide scope of the latest

research findings influencing the resistance of composite columns. Moreover, the

development of MN interaction curve is direct and this enables hand calculation

to be done.

The present studies have identified a number of possible areas that could be investi-

gated further: (i) treatment of multi-storey building columns subject to sidesway and

large moments, (ii) effects of lateral loads on the design and detailing of beam-to-

column joints, (iii) design and detailing of shear connectors between steel and con-

crete interface when the moment is the predominant force, (iv) effects of enhance-

ment of triaxially contained high-strength concrete, (v) elastic, creep and shrinkage

shortening of column columns, (vi) ductility of composite columns subject to earth-

quake and reversal loads, (vii) impact and energy absorption characteristic, and (viii)

design of large composite columns with irregular shapes or openings.

One particular area that requires more in-depth investigation is the physical and

mechanical bond between the structural steel shape and the surrounding concrete.

Additional work is needed to quantify the requirement for shear connectors in the

H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 53 (2000) 121147 147

cases where the column is subject to sidesway and when bending is significant. The

question of shear and moment transfer through a beam-column joint is yet to be

answered adequately. This is particularly important to understand the shear transfer

mechanism due to reversal wind loads, which could lead to serious degradation of the

joint strength. The behaviour of confined concrete in the steel tube requires special

consideration especially when high-strength concrete and high-strength steel are

used. Although some studies have been made on the above, further investigations

are still required with the aim of providing more in-depth studying for design

implementations.

Acknowledgements

advanced analysis for the design of composite structures carried out in the Depart-

ment of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, and is funded by

research grants RP 3981614.

References

[1] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures, Part 1.1: General rules and rules for

buildings. Brussels: Commission of European Communities, March 1992.

[2] BS 5400. Steel, concrete and composite bridges: Part 5: Code of practice for design of composite

bridges. London: British Standards Institution, 1979.

[3] Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago, IL: American

Institution of Steel Construction (AISC), 1993.

[4] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete. Detroit, MI: American

Concrete Institution, 1992.

[5] Furlong RW. Strength of steel-encased concrete beam columns. Journal of the Structural Division,

ASCE 1976;93(5):11324.

[6] Roik K, Bergmann R. Eurocode 4: Composite columns. Report EC4/6/89, University of Bochum,

June 1989.

[7] Basu AK, Sommerville W. Derivation of formulae for the design of rectangular composite columns.

Proceedings of the ICE, supplementary volume, 1969:23380.

[8] Virdi KS, Dowling PJ. The ultimate strength of composite columns in biaxial bending. Proceedings

of the ICE 1973;55(2):25172.

[9] Liew RJY, Saw HS, Yu CH. Composite column design in buildingsAssessment of current methods

and interim guidance. Research Report No. CE 026/98. National University of Singapore, May 1998.

[10] European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS). European recommendations for steel

construction. Construction Press, 1981.

[11] Beer H, Schulz G. The theoretical basis of the new column curves of the European Convention for

Constructional Steelwork (in French). Construction Metallique, No 3, September 1970.

[12] Johnson RP, editor. Composite structure of steel and concrete. vol. 2. London: Granada, 1986:50.

[13] SSRC Task Group 20. A Specification for the Design of Steel-Concrete Composite Columns. AISC

Engineering Journal, Fourth Quarter, 1979:10115.

[14] Shakir-Khalil H, Mouli M. Further tests on concrete-filled rectangular hollow-section columns. Struc-

tural Engineer 1990;68(20):40512.

[15] Chen WF, Lui EM. Structural stability: theory and implementation. New York: Elsevier, 1987.

- Buckling of ColumnsUploaded byPradeep Jayasinghe
- Night School 10 Session 7Uploaded byLCS
- Column Calculation to EN1993Uploaded byseljak_veseljak
- C-2021.pdfUploaded byDenise Koh Chin Hui
- DESIGN OF COLD FORMED STEEL STRUCTURESUploaded byrobersasmita
- Column Buckling DesignUploaded byGanesh.Mahendra
- Staad.Foundation Isolated Footing DesignUploaded byboyzes
- Lifting Lug DesignUploaded byRui Salvador
- Rc-2 Midterm Exam Part 1Uploaded byclare06ja
- 4_calculo_plasticoUploaded bymind_mac243028
- Horz_CHS_Brace_double cover plate_Conns.xlsUploaded bysreenivasulu chenchugari
- Built Up Column_ChannelUploaded bySambhav Poddar
- IFahdah_Steel2Uploaded bySimonas Janulaitis
- Compression Member 2013Uploaded byNathanDjumali
- Isolated Footing UniaxialUploaded byrvshankar143
- Gotluru Torsion PaperUploaded byklomps_jr
- Mol ConfortUploaded byakturkam
- BucklingUploaded byJunwhan Kim
- Lect05_Buckling of Columns.pptUploaded byabdiaziz
- LRFD Axially Loaded Compression MembersUploaded byالكشكولي رضوان
- Rigidez a flexiónUploaded byJosé Cabrera
- 23-400Uploaded byIhab El Aghoury
- 2015AUT MEC2405 Acetates 3 No Vids EnergieUploaded byDidou
- Paper 22Uploaded byAlex Gobbato
- Horz CHS Brace Double Cover Plate ConnsUploaded bysreenivasulu chenchugari
- 425-ch12-Lec-S12(1)Uploaded byBabu Sundararaman
- Mechanics of Materials.pdfUploaded byShanthakumar Nivoshan
- Simply Supported Curtain Wall.pdfUploaded bykingdbm
- structural-analysis-lab.docxUploaded byAnubhav Kumar
- Nanba & Kamura Study on Behavior of HS CFT ColumnsUploaded byNgoc Ba Nguyen

- Outrigger Design for High-Rise BuildingsUploaded byjatkinson2
- FSTC Welcome Pack 2015Uploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- How to Design Concrete Structures Using Eurocode 2Uploaded byAdil Javed Chaudhary
- 00 Nadim Hassoun Structural ConcreteUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Soil Structure InteractionUploaded byEmad Ahmed Khan
- 2-Art-2.pdfUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Conc and Ecent bracing comp.pdfUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Effect of Stress Ratio and v Notch Shape on Fatigue Life in Steel BeamUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- TST57 Design of Welded Joints Interview English 12.13 LRUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- TST56 Welded Joints Examples 12.13 EditUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- 7898 Limcon PDS Temp LTR 0714 LoRes FUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- 3_Structural_analysis_handout.pdfUploaded bytoliveira80
- Examples BaseUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Pakistan Ielts Calendar 2013Uploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Roof SpanUploaded bywitonomail5599
- C Column Interaction Slender2Uploaded byanand_parchure
- Angle of ReposeUploaded byashuchak
- Brick Weight Per Unit VolumeUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Reclaim Your Heart Yasmin Mogahed_2Uploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Get FileUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Wind PressureUploaded bysr4492
- Two Way Slab Punching Shear CheckUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Jabori NitUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Cracking in Bricks and BrickworkUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Buried Concrete Basement Wall Design 2013-04Uploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Kang KyuUploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- Chap 01Uploaded byTrung Nguyen Van
- 238164848-04_2Uploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- IES_2009_CONV_CIVIL_IIUploaded bySai Kumar

- 184-584-1-PB.pdfUploaded byAnonymous Ygz2shJhJa
- IJSRDV4I60086Uploaded byAmeer Muhammed Kasim
- NPQS_Chapter4.pdfUploaded bybryan94
- Geogard Review Tech Performance ReviewsUploaded byMohamed Ismail Shehab
- Hilti AnchorsUploaded byPaulSwinbank
- 154686893-C1603Uploaded bybarouniamine
- zeitz lrUploaded byapi-200493218
- Pds Cpd SikaQuick2500 UsUploaded bydpk
- About Ims SystemUploaded byBoško Janjušević
- Brown ClinkerUploaded byTamer Fathy
- Strut and TieUploaded byani145yadav
- Hard Lanscape BQsUploaded byIqram Meon
- Approved Vendors NagpurMetroUploaded byBennoDsouza
- Degree Standard TnpscUploaded bydinesh11r
- Investigation Architectural BuildingsUploaded byGeorgiana Matache
- Boq_kanombe Warehouse for JanuaryUploaded byvntiba
- IRIT8068 Ergo JibCranes FUploaded bytintucinb
- RollerUploaded bykapola
- Tier 1 Bridge Heavy Load Assessment Criteria -2013 (Main Road)Uploaded byyyanan1118
- Technical Specification for Earthwork (Excavation & Filling)Uploaded bySam Jandali
- Methodology to the CO2 and Case Studies.d0a7992b.8593Uploaded byLukman Tarigan Sumatra
- AC1 503.1-92 Standard Specification for Bonding Hardened Concrete, Steel, Wood, Brick, and Other Materials to Hardened Concrete with a Multi-Component EpoxyAdhesive.pdfUploaded byArik
- Design Codes & StandardsUploaded byJay Omana
- Lean Concrete BaseUploaded bygreat_triskelion
- thioflex_600Uploaded bymangjit
- Concrete Pipe Installation Guide-CPMUploaded bySankar Cdm
- 2003Lam and Teng - Design-Oriented Stress–Strain Model for FRP-confined ConcreteUploaded byFilipe Ribeiro
- Characteristics of Bamboo Leaf Ash Blended Cement Paste and MortarUploaded byAdi Prasetyo
- Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete_from ELKEMUploaded byssi3k
- Advanced Concrete Pavement ProgramUploaded byDigitalknown