Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

Compressive strength and stiffness of concrete-filled double-tube columns T

a,b b,⁎
Yongqian Zheng , Zhong Tao
a
Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Advanced Technology and Informatization in Civil Engineering, Fujian University of Technology, Fuzhou, Fujian Province 350118,
China
b
Centre for Infrastructure Engineering, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Concrete-filled double-tube (CFDT) columns have the potential to be widely used in high-rise buildings due to
Concrete-filled double-tube columns their very high load-carrying capacity, excellent ductility and good fire resistance. This new type of composite
Stub columns construction has attracted increasing research attention in the last decade, but there is a need to develop
Finite element models practical design recommendations for this construction. This paper aims to study the ultimate strength, the
Compressive strength
ultimate strain corresponding to the ultimate strength (ductility), and the stiffness of CFDT stub columns under
Compressive stiffness
axial compression. An existing finite element model is directly used to study square CFDT stub columns and this
Ductility
model is further modified to simulate circular CFDT stub columns under axial compression. Numerical data are
generated to cover a wide range of parameters for CFDT stub columns. Through regression analysis, simple
equations are proposed to calculate the ultimate strength, the compressive stiffness and the ultimate strain of
CFDT stub columns. These equations can assist engineers to conduct structural analysis and design of CFDT
columns.

1. Introduction
Concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) columns have been widely used
in construction due to their great advantages resulting from the com-
posite action between the steel and concrete materials [1]. In the last
few decades, many different types of CFST columns have been devel-
oped by utilising new construction materials or changing the config-
uration of conventional CFST columns, with an aim to improve the
structural performance or meet specific design requirements [2]. For
example, concrete-filled double-tube (CFDT) columns shown in Fig. 1
were developed to increase the strength, ductility and fire resistance of
composite columns [3,4]. Such CFDT construction consists of two
concentric steel tubes with the presence of concrete both inside and
outside of the inner tube. Thus, there is an inner CFST component,
which is protected by the outer concrete. It is envisaged that the CFDT
construction has very good fire resistance, making it very suitable to be
used in high-rise buildings [5]. Meanwhile, its load-carrying capacity
and stiffness can be significantly increased due to the presence of the
inner tube. Thus, it is possible to greatly reduce the size of the columns.
Furthermore, the CFDT construction also offers a much improved re-
sistance to impact, blast and seismic loads compared to conventional
CFST columns [6].
Compared with conventional CFST columns, there are only a few
applications of CFDT columns in practice due to the lack of design
guidelines. Roik and Bergmann [7] reported the earliest use of CFDT
columns in the extension of the city hall in Wuppertal, Germany. In this
project, a smaller circular tube (406.4 × 17.5 mm) was embedded into
a larger circular tube (558 × 12.5 mm) to increase the load-carrying
capacity and fire resistance. Later on, triangular CFDT mega-columns
were used in the construction of the Commerzbank Tower (56 stories
and 258.7 m in height, completed in 1997) in Frankfurt, Germany [8].
This building has been the tallest building in Germany since 1997.
Another application of CFDT columns in Germany was in the con-
struction of the Central Station in Berlin, where rectangular inner and
outer tubes were adopted [9]. More recently, the Guangzhou Fortune
Center (68 stories and 309 m in height, completed in 2015) in China
was constructed using four CFDT mega-columns in the corners [10].
The mega-column had two square cells and a circular tube was em-
bedded in each cell to increase the load-carrying capacity and stiffness.
In the last decade, extensive studies have been conducted on CFDT
stub columns under axial compression [3,11–16], CFDT beams [17],
slender CFDT columns under axial compression [5,15,18,19] and CFDT
columns under combined compression and bending [20]. Meanwhile,
Qian et al. [6] experimentally studied the seismic behaviour of square
CFDT columns. More recently, Romero et al. [4] and Espinos et al. [21]
studied the fire resistance of circular CFDT columns. In general, these
studies confirmed that CFDT columns have excellent performance at
both ambient and elevated temperatures.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: z.tao@westernsydney.edu.au (Z. Tao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.10.019
Received 25 April 2018; Received in revised form 3 September 2018; Accepted 15 October 2018
0263-8231/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao
Fig. 1. Typical cross-sections of CFDT columns.
Since circular tubes generally provide better confinement to con-
crete than non-circular tubes, previous studies have predominantly
adopted circular inner tubes, except that Xiong et al. [17] conducted
two bending tests on CFDT members with square inner tubes. In con-
trast, both circular and square tubes have been used as outer tubes in
previous studies, although circular outer tubes were mostly preferred
by researchers. This study will focus on CFDT stub columns with cir-
cular inner tubes only, but the outer tube of a CFDT column is either
circular (Fig. 1a) or square (Fig. 1b). It is believed that a square CFDT
column shown in Fig. 1b is easier to connect with beams. If the cross-
sectional areas are the same, the square column also has higher flexural
stiffness than the circular CFDT counterpart shown in Fig. 1a [16].
Therefore, both types of columns have potential for structural appli-
cations.
Despite extensive investigations on the behaviour of CFDT columns
under various conditions, very limited studies have been conducted to
develop design guidelines for CFDT columns [15,22]. In particular, no
attention has been paid to the compressive stiffness and deformation
capacity of CFDT columns, which are important for structural analysis
and seismic design of high-rise buildings [23].
Against the above research background, finite element (FE) analysis
will be conducted in this paper for circular and square CFDT stub col-
umns under axial compression. Using the FE modelling technique, nu-
merical data will be generated to cover a wide range of parameters for
CFDT stub columns. Through regression analysis, simple equations will
be proposed to calculate the compressive strength and corresponding
strain, as well as the compressive stiffness of CFDT stub columns.
2. Finite element (FE) modelling
2.1. Model description
Based on the work conducted by Tao et al. [24] for conventional
CFST columns, Wang et al. [16] developed a FE model for square CFDT
stub columns with or without stiffeners using ABAQUS [25]. The FE
model presented in [16] is directly used in this paper to study square
CFDT stub columns shown in Fig. 1b. Meanwhile, Wang et al.’s FE
model [16] is further modified in this study to simulate circular CFDT
stub columns shown in Fig. 1a. Unless otherwise specified, the length of
a stub column is determined to be three times the overall diameter or
width (Do) of the cross-section in the simulation. Since details of the FE
modelling have been presented in [16,24], only a brief description of
the FE model is given below.
Due to symmetry, only one-eighth of a CFDT stub column was
modelled to improve the computational efficiency, as shown in Fig. 2.
Three-dimensional eight-node brick elements (C3D8R) were adopted to
model the concrete, whereas four-node shell elements with reduced
175
Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188
integration (S4R) were used to model the steel tubes. Sensitivity ana-
lysis indicates that tubes with excessively large thicknesses are more
suitable to be modelled with solid elements to improve the prediction
accuracy. This is consistent with the finding reported in [23]. There-
fore, C3D8R elements were also used to model steel tubes with a dia-
meter-to-thickness (or width-to-thickness) ratio of 12 in the numerical
analysis conducted in Section 3.
As suggested by Tao et al. [24], the strain-hardening effect was
considered for a circular inner or outer steel tube by using the
stress–strain (σ − ε) model presented by Katwal et al. [26], whereas an
elastic-perfectly plastic model was adopted for a square outer tube. It
should be noted that Katwal et al.’s model is an extension of the steel
model presented in [27], where the upper limit of the yield stress (fy)
has been increased from 800 to 960 MPa.
The concrete σ − ε model proposed by Tao et al. [24] has been
successfully used by Pons et al. [5] and Wang et al. [16] to simulate
CFDT columns. This model is also used in this study for both the inner
core concrete and outer concrete ring. It should be noted that Tao
et al.’s concrete model was originally proposed for conventional CFST
columns with normal- or high-strength concrete, where a confinement
factor (ξ) should be defined. This factor affects the simulation of con-
crete confinement and the post-peak response of concrete [24]. Based
on the studies in [5,16], the confinement factor for the inner concrete
(ξi) is calculated by Eq. (1), whereas the corresponding factor for the
outer concrete (ξo) is determined by Eq. (2).
fyi Asi fyi 2
= = ·
Di
1
i
fci Aci fci Di 2ti (1)
fyo Aso fyo 2
Do
= = · 1
o
fco Ac,nominal fco Do 2to (2)
where fyi and fyo are the yield stresses of the inner and outer steel tubes,
respectively; Asi and Aso are the cross-sectional areas of the inner and
outer steel tubes, respectively; fci and fco are the cylinder compressive
strengths of the inner and outer concrete, respectively; Aci is the cross-
sectional area of the inner core concrete; Ac,nominal is the void area in-
side the outer steel tube; Di and ti are the diameter and thickness of the
inner circular steel tube, respectively; Do is the diameter of a circular
outer tube or the width of a square outer tube; and to is the thickness of
the outer steel tube.
A surface-to-surface contact with friction was introduced to model
the interaction between different components, where the friction
coefficient between the steel and concrete was taken as 0.6 [24]. It is
worth noting that a direct interaction will occur between the inner
CFST and the outer concrete ring in a CFDT stub column after the de-
velopment of a large axial deformation [16]. This interaction will
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao
Fig. 2. Finite element models.
produce a lateral confinement stress (p) for the inner CFST, as shown in
Fig. 3. The influence can be automatically taken into account in
ABAQUS and it was found that there is no need to modify the concrete
models to account for this [5,16].
Symmetry boundary conditions are applied to each symmetric plane
of a CFDT stub column, where no rotation about the in-plane axes of the
symmetric plane was allowed and neither was the translation normal to
the symmetric plane. For the top end of the column, all degrees of
freedom were fixed except the axial displacement. An axial displace-
ment was applied to the top end of the column to simulate the axial
compression. The FE simulation was implemented using the ABAQUS
static general approach.
It should be noted that size effect associated with the brittle strain-
softening damage of concrete under compression has not been con-
sidered in the present FE model. Wang et al. [28] and Wu et al. [29]
recently studied the size effect on axial compressive behaviour of
176
Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188
circular and square CFST stub columns, respectively. Wang et al. [28]
reported a relative reduction of 9.7% in peak strength when the ex-
ternal diameter increased from 153 to 469 mm for circular CFST col-
umns with a steel ratio of 4.1% (Do/to ≈ 100). The relative reduction of
peak strength, however, increased to 22.2% when the cross-sectional
dimension increased from 300 to 750 mm for square CFST columns
with a steel ratio of 8.5% (Do/to = 50). This is consistent with the
research finding reported by Yamamoto et al. [30], who found that size
effect in circular CFST columns was less obvious than that in square
CFST columns. According to Caner and Bažant [31], the size effect in
CFST columns could be reduced or even eliminated if sufficient con-
finement is provided to suppress softening of concrete in compression.
This explains the smaller size effect in circular CFST columns since a
circular steel tube is more effective in confining concrete than the
square counterpart. Because of the use of dual tubes to confine con-
crete, it is expected that size effect in CFDT columns is less significant
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188

Fig. 3. Interaction between the outer concrete and inner CFST.

than that in conventional CFST columns. This is confirmed by the test
results reported by Wan and Zha [15], where size effect was negligible
for the CFDT specimens with an overall diameter of 426 mm. However,
size effect may still be available in CFDT columns with thin-walled
tubes; further research should be conducted in this area.
2.2. Verification of the FE model
Wang et al. [16] have verified the FE model with their own test data
of 12 square CFDT stub columns. In their test program, longitudinal
stiffeners were provided for the thin-walled outer square tubes with a
Do/to ratio of 100. Excellent agreement has been achieved between the
experiment and simulation, in terms of failure mode, ultimate strength
and axial load–axial strain (N − ε) curve. If these test data reported by
Wang et al. [16] are taken into account, test data of 40 circular and 35
square CFDT stub columns from five sources [3,11,14–16] are available
to verify the FE model. The detailed parameters of the test data are
summarised in Table 1. It should be noted that concrete cube com-
pressive strengths were reported in the references except [3]. Since the
concrete model for FE analysis uses concrete cylinder compressive
strength ( fc ) as an input parameter, the cube strength was converted to
equivalent cylinder strength using a conversion table provided by Yu
et al. [32]. As can be seen from Table 1, high-strength concrete (HSC, fc
is between 60 and 120 MPa) was used in [11,14,16], whereas ultra-high
strength concrete (UHSC, fc > 120 MPa) was used by Liew and Xiong
[3].
N − ε curves are available for all test specimens except one square
specimen I-CSCFT1 in [11]. In general, the predicted N − ε curves are
in good agreement with the measured curves reported in the literature.
Figs. 4 and 5 compare the predicted N − ε curves with typical experi-
mental results of circular and square CFDT columns, respectively. As
can be seen, the concrete strength has not apparently affected the
prediction accuracy. It should be noted that N − ε curves of the spe-
cimens tested by Wang et al. [16] are not compared in Fig. 5, since they
have been rigorously compared with predictions in [16], showing an
excellent agreement between them.
The predicted ultimate strengths from the FE model (NuFE) are
further compared with the measured ultimate strengths (Nue) in Fig. 6.
Following the definition proposed by Tao et al. [24], the ultimate
strength is defined as the first peak load corresponding to an axial strain
less than 0.01 if the N − ε curve has a descending branch (such as the
curve in Fig. 4b); otherwise the ultimate strength is defined as the load
at the strain of 0.01 (a typical example is shown in Fig. 4c). For circular
columns, the mean value (µ) and the standard deviation (SD) of NuFE/
Nue are 0.954 and 0.068, respectively; whilst the corresponding values
of µ and SD are 0.995 and 0.058 for square columns, respectively. As
can also be seen in Fig. 6, the prediction errors are normally
within ± 10% for the ultimate strength. The comparisons shown in
Figs. 4–6 indicate good prediction accuracy of the FE model.
2.3. Behavioural analysis
The behaviour of square CFDT columns with longitudinal stiffeners
has been thoroughly analysed by Wang et al. [16], including the in-
teraction between different components. CFDT columns without stif-
feners have similar behaviour except that the influence of local buck-
ling might become significant if unstiffened thin-walled outer tubes are
used. Therefore, this section will focus on the behavioural analysis of
CFDT columns with thin-walled outer tubes, which are susceptible to
local buckling.
Two typical CFDT stub columns are analysed, including a circular
column and a square column with the following parameters: Do
= 400 mm, to = 2.67 (circular) or 4 mm (square), Di × ti
= 200 × 4 mm, L = 1200 mm, fyo = fyi = 400 MPa, and fco′ = fci′
= 50 MPa. Therefore, the chosen Do/to values are 150 for the circular
column and 100 for the square column, which are extreme values in the
analysed parameter ranges in Section 3. For comparison purposes, the
corresponding CFST columns without inner tubes are also analysed.
When the analysed circular CFDT column reaches its peak load, the
axial load carried by the outer circular tube with a Do/to ratio of 150 is
only 69% of its nominal strength fyoAso. Because of the presence of the
inner tube in confining concrete, the peak load of this column is still
6.2% higher than the superposition strength of all components. If the
Do/to ratio of the outer tube decreases to 100 and other parameters

Table 1
Summary of test data for CFDT stub columns.
Type Number of specimens Do (mm) Do/to Di (mm) Di/ti Di/Do fyo (MPa) fyi (MPa) fco (MPa) fci (MPa) Source

Circular 6 426 55–57 133–273 20–42 0.3–0.6 298–302 317–478 25 25 Wan and Zha [15]
8 219 22–44 114 18–32 0.5 377–381 406–428 51–167 51–184 Liew and Xiong [3]
26 168–219 21–37 89–102 13–23 0.4–0.6 313–365 322–413 33–88 33–88 Fang and Lin [14]
Square 23 180 33–50 89–140 25–49 0.5–0.8 338–348 308–345 78–96 78–96 Qian et al. [11]
12 200 100 115–140 29–70 0.6–0.7 230 322–492 42 42–70 Wang et al. [16]

177
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao
Fig. 4. Comparison between predicted and measured N − ε curves for circular CFDT columns.
remain the same, the axial load carried by the outer tube increases to
75% of its nominal strength. At the same time, the peak load of the
column is 8.2% higher than the superposition strength. When the
square CFDT column reaches its peak load, the axial load carried by the
outer square tube with a Do/to ratio of 100 is only 54% of fyoAso because
of the significant influence of local buckling, whereas the peak load of
this column is 2.7% lower than the superposition strength. However, if
the ratio of Do/to decreases to 30 and other parameters remain the
same, the local buckling influence of the outer square tube on the
strength will be eliminated. In this case, the axial load carried by the
outer tube increases to 88% of its nominal strength as the column
reaches its peak load, which is 2.3% higher than the superposition
strength. It has been well documented that a compact steel tube de-
velops an axial stress less than the yield stress due to the interaction
between the steel tube and concrete [26]. In general, both examples
highlight that local buckling of the steel tube leads to a reduction in the
compressive strength of the stub column. This finding is similar to that
observed in conventional CFST columns [33].
The outward deformation of the outer steel tube at the mid-height is
analysed, where Point A shown in Fig. 2 is selected. Fig. 7 shows the
corresponding outward deformation as a function of the axial strain for
the selected CFDT columns and the corresponding CFST counterparts.
Both types of columns reach the ultimate strength at almost the same
time. For the circular columns, the outward deformation of the outer
tubes is only about 1 mm at peak load. After that, the outward de-
formation develops gradually while the steel tube remains in contact
with the concrete. It seems the outward deformation of the circular tube
results from the in-plane compressive stress in combination with the
178
Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188
concrete dilation. For the square columns, no obvious outward de-
formation is found before the axial strain reaches 800 με. After that, the
outward deformation develops rapidly and reaches about 35 mm cor-
responding to an axial strain of 0.01. Meanwhile, a gap develops be-
tween the outer square tube and concrete, inferring that the outward
deformation of the square tube is only caused by the in-plane com-
pressive stress. It is not surprising that the square tube is more prone to
local buckling. It can also be found in Fig. 7 that the outward de-
formation of a CFDT column is quite close to that of the CFST coun-
terpart. Similarly, it is found that the presence of the inner steel tube
has no significant influence on the interaction between the outer steel
tube and concrete.
The initial compressive stiffness of the thin-walled CFDT column is
compared with the superposition stiffness of individual components,
which indicates a close agreement between them. It can be concluded
that local buckling of the outer tube has no obvious influence on the
initial compressive stiffness since local outward deformation is not
obvious in the initial stage, as can be seen in Fig. 7.
For structural design purposes, engineers may want to have a limit
criterion specified for the Do/to ratio to exclude influence of local
buckling of thin-walled outer tubes on the strength of CFDT columns.
Uy [33] used a finite strip model to analyse local and post-local buck-
ling of square CFST columns, whereas Bradford et al. [34] adopted the
Rayleigh–Ritz method to study the slenderness limit for circular CFST
columns. Since the outward deformation of the steel tube can be caused
by local buckling and/or interaction between the steel tube and con-
crete, both Uy [33] and Bradford et al. [34] assumed that only the steel
tube is subjected to uniform compression and concrete is a rigid
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188

Fig. 5. Comparison between predicted and measured N − ε curves for square CFDT columns.

Fig. 6. Comparison between predicted and measured ultimate strengths.

medium. Therefore, the concrete itself will not deform radially to push
the steel tube outward. According to the study conducted by Uy [33],
the limit of Do/to ratio could be specified as 60 250/ fyo for a square
tube in the composite column to reach plasticity. The corresponding
slenderness ratio of a circular tube was specified as 125 × f by Brad-
250
yo
ford et al. [34]. As for CFDT columns, the FE method developed in this
paper is not suitable to define the limit criterion of Do/to ratio since the
load is applied to the concrete and steel tubes simultaneously.
Therefore, the outward deformation of the steel tube will be affected by
the concrete dilation, making it hard to define the initiation of local
buckling of the outer tube. If adopting a similar method used by Uy
[33] or Bradford et al. [34] to study the limit of Do/to ratio for CFDT
columns, the presence of the inner tube will have no influence on the
local buckling behaviour. Therefore, the limit criteria suggested by Uy
[33] and Bradford et al. [34] for conventional CFST columns are also
applicable to CFDT columns. This is further supported by the fact that

179
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao
Fig. 7. Development of outward deformation at point A.
the outward deformation of a CFDT column is not obviously affected by
the inner tube, as shown in Fig. 7. It is worth noting that there is no
need to specify a limit of diameter to thickness ratio for the inner tube
since local buckling is avoided by embedding in concrete.
3. Development of a numerical database
The verified FE model was used to generate numerical data to cover
a wide range of parameters for CFDT stub columns. Based on the nu-
merical database, equations are then developed in Section 4 to predict
the ultimate strength, the compressive stiffness and the ultimate strain
of CFDT stub columns.
Seven key parameters are identified for the analysis, including the
yield stresses (fyi and fyo) and cross-sectional aspect ratios (Di/ti and Do/
to) of the inner and outer steel tubes, cylinder compressive strengths ( fci
and fco ) of the inner and outer concrete, and Di/Do ratio. The levels
chosen for these parameters are: fyi = 200, 400, 690, 960 MPa; fyo
= 200, 400, 690, 960 MPa; fci = 20, 50, 100, 150, 200 MPa; fco = 20,
50, 100, 150, 200 MPa; Di/ti = 12, 30, 50, 100; Do/to = 12, 30, 50, 100,
150 for circular outer tubes and 12, 30, 50, 100 for square outer tubes;
and Di/Do = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75. Since size effect is not considered in the
present study, the overall cross-sectional dimension Do is taken as
400 mm and the length L of the columns is kept constant at 1200 mm.
To develop the numerical database, it is not practical and necessary
to analyse a total of 43,200 combinations of all parameters at various
levels. Instead, 846 examples including 435 circular and 411 square
CFDT stub columns were designed to cover the parameter space in a
reasonable manner. The chosen examples can be classified into three
groups: (1) examples in Group I were designed to conduct parametric
analysis for the inner CFST component (fyi, fci , Di/ti and Di/Do) when
parameters for the outer CFST component (comprising of the outer tube
and outer concrete) were kept constant (fyo = 400 MPa, fco = 50 MPa
and Do/to = 50); (2) examples in Group II were designed to conduct
parametric analysis for the outer CFST component (fyo, fco and Do/to)
when parameters for the inner CFST component were kept constant (fyi
= 400 MPa, fci = 50 MPa, Di/ti = 50 and Di/Do = 0.5); and (3) ex-
amples in Group III listed in Table 2 have varying parameters for both
the inner and outer CFST components. Only examples in Groups I and II
cover all possible combinations of various parameters, whereas Group
III mainly consists of examples with extreme values (lowest and
highest) specified for the parameters.
4. Proposed model for compressive strength
Wang et al. [16] suggested that a superposition model is accurate
180
Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188
enough to predict the compressive strength of thin-walled square CFDT
columns with stiffeners. Since this paper aims to propose generalised
models for CFDT columns covering a wide range of parameters, the
superposition strengths (Nu0) calculated from Eq. (3) are firstly com-
pared with the ultimate strengths (NuFE) obtained from the FE predic-
tions. If it is necessary, new equations will be proposed to predict the
ultimate strength (Nu).
Nu0 = fyi Asi + fci A ci + f Aso + fco Aco
yo (3)
where Aco is the cross-sectional area of the outer concrete sandwiched
between the two tubes.
4.1. Circular columns
Fig. 8a shows the comparison between NuFE and Nu0 for circular
columns. Generally, the simple supposition method underestimates the
ultimate strength of the circular columns. The mean of NuFE/Nu0 is
1.100 for all the 435 examples and the maximum ratio reaches 1.195.
The clear strength enhancement results mainly from the concrete con-
finement provided by the double circular tubes. A typical example is
selected to demonstrate this, where parameters of the circular column
are: fci = fco = 50 MPa, fyi = fyo = 400 MPa, Di/ti = Do/to = 50, and
Di/Do = 0.5. Fig. 9 shows the N − ε curves of different components in
the column. This column reaches its ultimate strength at an axial strain
of 0.88%. At this moment, the two tubes are already in the post-peak
regime due to the concrete dilation [26]. The corresponding axial
stresses in the outer tube and inner tube are 0.78fyo and 0.87fyi, re-
spectively. At the same time, the average axial stresses for the outer
concrete and inner concrete are 1.38 fco and 1.65 fci , respectively. Since
the concrete strength enhancement outweighs the strength reduction of
the steel tubes at the ultimate state, the ultimate strength of this CFDT
column is 14.3% higher than Nu0.
The above analysis indicates that it is generally conservative to ig-
nore concrete confinement effect in circular CFDT columns. Based on
the numerical database, it is possible to develop equations in-
corporating the confinement effect to predict the ultimate strength (Nu)
of CFDT columns by summing the actual contributions from various
components. But due to the complex interaction between these com-
ponents, it is envisaged that the equations will be relatively compli-
cated using this method. Instead, this study applies a strength correc-
tion factor ks to the superposition strength Nu0 to predict Nu, as shown
in Eq. (4).
Nu = ks Nu0 = k s fyi Asi + fci Aci + f Aso + fco Aco
yo
(4)
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188

Table 2
Analysed examples in Group III.
No. Do/to fco (MPa) fyo (MPa) Di/Do Di/ti fci (MPa) fyi (MPa) No. Do/to fco (MPa) fyo (MPa) Di/Do Di/ti fci (MPa) fyi (MPa)

1 50 50 200 0.5 50 50 200 49 50 20 400 0.5 12 50 400

2 50 50 200 0.5 50 50 690 50 50 20 400 0.5 30 50 400
3 50 50 200 0.5 50 50 960 51 50 20 400 0.5 100 50 400
4 50 50 690 0.5 50 50 200 52 50 150 400 0.5 12 50 400
5 50 50 690 0.5 50 50 690 53 50 150 400 0.5 30 50 400
6 50 50 690 0.5 50 50 960 54 50 150 400 0.5 100 50 400
7 50 20 400 0.5 50 50 200 55 30 50 400 0.5 12 50 400
8 50 20 400 0.5 50 50 690 56 30 50 400 0.5 30 50 400
9 50 20 400 0.5 50 50 960 57 30 50 400 0.5 100 50 400
10 50 150 400 0.5 50 50 200 58 100 50 400 0.5 12 50 400
11 50 150 400 0.5 50 50 690 59 100 50 400 0.5 30 50 400
12 50 150 400 0.5 50 50 960 60 100 50 400 0.5 100 50 400
13 30 50 400 0.5 50 50 200 61 50 50 200 0.25 50 50 400
14 30 50 400 0.5 50 50 690 62 50 50 200 0.75 50 50 400
15 30 50 400 0.5 50 50 960 63 50 50 690 0.25 50 50 400
16 100 50 400 0.5 50 50 200 64 50 50 690 0.75 50 50 400
17 100 50 400 0.5 50 50 690 65 50 20 400 0.25 50 50 400
18 100 50 400 0.5 50 50 960 66 50 20 400 0.75 50 50 400
19 50 50 200 0.5 50 20 400 67 50 150 400 0.25 50 50 400
20 50 50 200 0.5 50 100 400 68 50 150 400 0.75 50 50 400
21 50 50 200 0.5 50 150 400 69 30 50 400 0.25 50 50 400
22 50 50 200 0.5 50 200 400 70 30 50 400 0.75 50 50 400
23 50 50 690 0.5 50 20 400 71 100 50 400 0.25 50 50 400
24 50 50 690 0.5 50 100 400 72 100 50 400 0.75 50 50 400
25 50 50 690 0.5 50 150 400 73 50 50 960 0.5 50 50 200
26 50 50 690 0.5 50 200 400 74 50 50 960 0.5 50 50 690
27 50 20 400 0.5 50 20 400 75 50 50 960 0.5 50 20 400
28 50 20 400 0.5 50 100 400 76 50 50 960 0.5 50 150 400
29 50 20 400 0.5 50 150 400 77 50 50 960 0.5 30 50 400
30 50 20 400 0.5 50 200 400 78 50 50 960 0.5 100 50 400
31 50 150 400 0.5 50 20 400 79 50 50 960 0.25 50 50 400
32 50 150 400 0.5 50 100 400 80 50 50 960 0.75 50 50 400
33 50 150 400 0.5 50 150 400 81 50 100 400 0.5 50 50 200
34 50 150 400 0.5 50 200 400 82 50 200 400 0.5 50 50 690
35 30 50 400 0.5 50 20 400 83 50 100 400 0.5 50 20 400
36 30 50 400 0.5 50 100 400 84 50 200 400 0.5 50 150 400
37 30 50 400 0.5 50 150 400 85 50 100 400 0.5 30 50 400
38 30 50 400 0.5 50 200 400 86 50 200 400 0.5 100 50 400
39 100 50 400 0.5 50 20 400 87 50 100 400 0.25 50 50 400
40 100 50 400 0.5 50 100 400 88 50 200 400 0.75 50 50 400
41 100 50 400 0.5 50 150 400 89 12 50 400 0.5 50 50 200
42 100 50 400 0.5 50 200 400 90a 150 50 400 0.5 50 50 690
43 50 50 200 0.5 12 50 400 91 12 50 400 0.5 50 20 400
44 50 50 200 0.5 30 50 400 92a 150 50 400 0.5 50 150 400
45 50 50 200 0.5 100 50 400 93 12 50 400 0.5 30 50 400
46 50 50 690 0.5 12 50 400 94a 150 50 400 0.5 100 50 400
47 50 50 690 0.5 30 50 400 95 12 50 400 0.25 50 50 400
48 50 50 690 0.5 100 50 400 96a 150 50 400 0.75 50 50 400

a
Columns with Do/to = 150 are only considered for circular CFDTs.

Fig. 8. Comparison between NuFE and Nu0 for circular columns.

181
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao
Fig. 9. N−ε curves for a typical circular column.
Thus, ks can be expressed as ks = Nu/Nu0. If Nu is determined from
FE modelling, ks can be calculated as NuFE/Nu0 by replacing Nu with
NuFE. Parametric analysis indicates that the confinement factor of the
outer concrete (ξo) is the primary factor influencing ks for circular CFDT
columns, as shown in Fig. 8b. The general trend is that ks increases with
increasing ξo when ξo < 2. When ξo increases further, ks reaches a
constant value. Other parameters, such as ξi, also slightly affect ks. But
for the sake of simplicity, only ξo is considered to derive an equation to
predict ks. Accordingly, Eq. (5) is suggested to predict ks for circular
CFDT columns.
k s = 1.13 0.16exp ( 2.54 o ) (5)
The accuracy of the proposed equation for ks can be found in
Fig. 10, where the coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.56. Because of
the ignorance of influence of other minor factors, the value of R2 is not
very high, but remains reasonable. ks predicted from Eq. (5) varies from
0.97 to 1.13. The prediction accuracy of Nu from Eq. (4) will be de-
monstrated in subsection 4.3.
4.2. Square columns
Fig. 11a provides a comparison between NuFE and Nu0 for square
columns, where the ratio of NuFE/Nu0 ranges from 0.841 to 1.099. In
general, the NuFE/Nu0 ratio also increases with increasing ξo, as can be
seen in Fig. 11b. But compared to circular columns, these square col-
umns generally have smaller NuFE/Nu0 ratios and the variation in the
Fig. 10. ks of circular CFDT columns as a function of ξo.
182
Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188
NuFE/Nu0 ratio is also larger. The differences in behaviour can be ex-
plained by the less significant concrete confinement by the outer square
tube and its increased possibility of local buckling. For stocky CFDT
columns with small Do/to ratios, their NuFE/Nu0 ratios are generally
greater than unity, highlighting the benefits of strong concrete con-
finement. A typical column with a thick outer tube is simulated to il-
lustrate this. The parameters of this column are: Do/to = 12, fci = fco
= 50 MPa, fyi = 400 MPa, fyo = 690 MPa, Di/ti = 50 and Di/Do = 0.5.
The obtained NuFE/Nu0 ratio for this example is 1.079. On the other
hand, the NuFE/Nu0 ratios are generally smaller than unity when the Do/
to ratios reach 100, as shown in Fig. 11a. This is due to the local
buckling of the outer thin-walled tube and the weak concrete confine-
ment. For example, for a thin-walled CFDT column (Do/to = 100, fci =
50 MPa, fco = 20 MPa, fyi = fyo = 400 MPa, Di/ti = 50 and Di/Do =
0.5), its NuFE/Nu0 ratio decreases to 0.946. In contrast, the NuFE/Nu0
ratios of most examples with a Do/to ratio of 30 or 50 are close to unity
since the outer square tubes are not susceptible to local buckling.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the NuFE/Nu0 ratio of a square CFDT
column is also dependent on the Do/to ratio.
Another fact to be considered is that the ultimate strain (εc) corre-
sponding to the ultimate strength is relatively small for a square CFDT
column. In most cases, εc varies between 3000 and 4000 με. However,
εc of a circular CFDT column normally exceeds 4000 με and sometimes
can be greater than 0.01. Thus, the different components in a square
CFDT column are less likely to reach their strengths at the same time,
especially when ultra-high strength materials are used. This is illu-
strated in Fig. 12, where the column has an inner tube with a fyi of
960 MPa, and other parameters for the column are: Do/to = 50, fci = fco
= 50 MPa, fyo = 400 MPa, Di/ti = 50 and Di/Do = 0.75. The inner
CFST of this column is relatively strong, but its capacity has not been
fully utilised. As shown in Fig. 12, the outer tube of this column reaches
its peak load before the column reaches its ultimate strength. While the
outer concrete reaches its full capacity at an axial strain of 3213 με, the
composite column as a whole also reaches its ultimate strength. But at
this moment, the inner concrete and inner tube have not reached their
full load-carrying capacity. In fact, the inner CFST only reaches 67% of
its capacity. Therefore, the ks-value of this column is 0.945, which is
smaller than unity. A survey of the numerical data indicates that the
values of ks are normally smaller than unity when fco > 150 MPa,
fyi > 690 MPa or fyo > 690 MPa. But ks has not been adversely affected
by the adoption of ultra-high strength inner concrete. This can be ex-
plained by the fact that the ductility of the inner concrete is greatly
improved to allow the utilisation of its strength.
As can be seen in Fig. 11a, the superposition model expressed by Eq.
(3) provides reasonable predictions for most square CFDT columns.
However, it should also be noticed that the predictions will be relatively
conservative if Eq. (3) is used to predict the ultimate strength of square
CFDT columns with a small Do/to ratio. Most importantly, unsafe pre-
dictions will be obtained if thin-walled outer tubes or ultra-high
strength materials are used. Therefore, Eq. (4) expressed as ksNu0 is also
adopted herein for square CFDT columns, where ks can be larger or
smaller than unity.
Based on regression analysis, Eq. (6) is proposed to calculate ks for
square CFDT columns, which is a function of ξo and Do/to. Meanwhile,
three correction factors k1, k2, k3 are introduced to account for the
reduction in ks for using ultra-high strength outer concrete, outer tube
and inner tube, respectively.
2.45
7 Do 0.6
ks = 1 7 × 10 + 0.022 o
k1 k2 k3
to (6)
1 20 fco 150 MPa
k1 =
1.15 0.001fco 150 < fco 200 MPa (7)
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188

Fig. 11. Comparison between NuFE and Nu0 for square columns.

Fig. 12. N − ε curves for a square column with an ultra-high strength inner
tube. Fig. 13. Comparison of ks between predictions by Eq. (6) and FE predictions for
square columns.

1 200 fyo 690 MPa

k2 = (µ) of Nuc/NuFE ratio is 0.999 and the standard derivation (SD) is 0.025.
1 0.003 ( )Do 1.73
to
(fco ) 1.37 (0.0037fyo 2.553) 690 < fyo 960 MPa
The corresponding values for the square columns are 0.997 and 0.024,
(8) respectively. This comparison confirms that there is a good agreement
between the predictions from Eq. (4) and the FE predictions for both
1 200 fyi 690 MPa circular and square columns. Fig. 14 also presents the prediction ac-
k3 =
1.0966 0.00014fyi 690 < fyi 960 MPa curacy for different groups of data. It seems that the source of numerical
(9)
data has no obvious influence on the prediction accuracy. This is also
in which the units of fco , fyo and fyi are MPa. the case when predicting the compressive stiffness and the ultimate
According to Eqs. (7)–(9), k1 decreases from 1 to 0.95 when fco strain, as can be seen in the following sections.
increases from 150 MPa to 200 MPa; k2 decreases from 1 to 0.86 when The predicted ultimate strengths (Nuc) from Eq. (4) are further
fyo increases from 690 MPa to 960 MPa for columns with a Do/to ratio of compared with the measured ultimate strengths (Nue) in Fig. 15. For the
100 and fco of 20 MPa; and k3 decreases from 1 to 0.96 when fyi in- 40 circular specimens, the values of μ and SD of the Nuc/Nue ratio are
creases from 690 MPa to 960 MPa. 0.965 and 0.057, respectively. For the 35 square specimens, the cor-
The ks−values predicted by Eq. (6) are compared in Fig. 13 with the responding values of μ and SD are 0.993 and 0.052, respectively. It
values calculated using the FE model. In general, the agreement be- should be noted that the strength contribution of stiffeners (fylAsl) was
tween them is reasonable, and the prediction errors of ks are generally directly added to the predicted strength as an additional term for the 12
within ± 10%. The coefficient of determination (R2) for Eq. (6) is 0.57, square CFDT columns with longitudinal stiffeners reported by Wang
which is close to that of Eq. (5). et al. [16], where fyl and Asl are the yield stress and total area of the
steel stiffeners, respectively. Meanwhile, the longitudinal stiffeners
4.3. Prediction accuracy could delay the local buckling of the thin-walled outer tubes. To con-
sider this beneficial influence, the cross-section slenderness Do/to in Eq.
Fig. 14 compares the predicted ultimate strengths (Nuc) from Eq. (4) (6) is replaced by the width-to-thickness ratio of the subpanel
with the FE predictions (NuFE). The range of Nuc/NuFE is from 0.942 to [(0.5Do−2to)/to] [35]. The comparison in Fig. 15 confirms a good
1.056 for the 435 circular examples, whereas that for the 411 square agreement between Nuc and Nue. The prediction errors of the ultimate
examples is from 0.941 to 1.066. For circular columns, the mean value strengths are generally within ± 10%.

183
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188

Fig. 14. Comparison between Nuc and NuFE.

5. Proposed model for compressive stiffness EA = Esi Asi + Eso Aso + c (Eci A ci + Eco Aco ) (10)

Following the definition of Huo et al. [36] and Yang et al. [37], the
compressive stiffness EA of CFDT columns were determined as the se-
cant stiffness corresponding to 0.4Nu from the FE predicted N − ε
curves. This definition was also adopted by Wang et al. [23] to derive
EA for conventional CFST columns.
The values of EA from numerical predictions are compared in
Fig. 16 with (EA)0 calculated based on superposition. (EA)0 is expressed
as (EA)0 = Esi Asi +Eso Aso + Eci A ci + Eco Aco , in which Esi, Eso, Eci, and
Eco are the elastic moduli of the inner tube, outer tube, inner concrete
and outer concrete, respectively. In this study, Esi and Eso are taken as
200,000 MPa, whereas Eci and Eco are determined using the empirical
equation presented in ACI 318 [38]. The same values have been
adopted in the FE modelling. In general, EA is smaller than (EA)0 due to
the nonlinearity of concrete. The stronger the confinement, the larger is
the stiffness reduction for the concrete [23]. As shown in Fig. 16, EA is
generally close to (EA)0 when ξo is relatively small. However, EA tends
to decrease with increasing ξo, and EA can be 12% lower than (EA)0
within the parameter range. Therefore, the superposition model may be
used to predict EA, but a reduction in stiffness should be considered for
the inner and outer concrete. Although it is possible to introduce two
reduction factors for the inner concrete stiffness (Eci Aci ) and outer
concrete stiffness (Eco A co ), respectively, it is found that a single re-
duction factor ( c ) can be used for both inner and outer concrete
components to simplify the calculation. Thus, Eq. (10) is proposed to
predict EA for CFDT columns.
5.1. Determining κc
From Eq. (10), κc can be derived as c = (EA Esi Asi Eso Aso )/
(Eci Aci + Eco Aco ) . Using this expression, κc can be determined for each
example in the numerical database. As already shown in Fig. 16, ξo has
influence on the ratio of EA/(EA)0. Thus, it can be inferred that κc is also
dependent on ξo. Parametric analysis indicates that κc is also slightly
affected by ξi, Di/Do and fco . In general, κc decreases with increasing ξi,
and the influence is similar to that of ξo. Meanwhile, κc also decreases
with increasing Di/Do ratio. As the Di/Do ratio increases, the area of the
outer concrete decreases and that of the inner concrete increases. Since
the inner concrete is normally better confined than the outer concrete,
the concrete as a whole develops higher nonlinearity. Furthermore, κc
increases with increasing fco . This can be explained by the fact that
higher strength concrete demonstrates less pronounced nonlinearity in
the ascending stage.
To simplify the calculation, however, κc is only considered as a
function of ξo. Based on regression analysis, Eqs. (11a) and (11b) are
proposed to predict the values of κc for circular and square CFDT col-
umns, respectively.
c =1 0.014 o 0.7 for circular CFDT (11a)
c =1 0.011 0.74 for square CFDT (11b)
o
Fig. 17 compares the predicted c from Eq. (11) with the numerical

Fig. 15. Comparison between Nuc and Nue.

184
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao
Fig. 16. Comparison between EA and (EA)0.
data obtained from the FE analysis. The value of R2 is 0.307 for circular
columns, whereas the corresponding value is 0.371 for square columns.
The R2-values are relatively low due to the neglect of the influence of ξi,
Di/Do and fco .
5.2. Prediction accuracy
The compressive stiffness (EA)c of CFDT columns calculated from
Eq. (10) are compared in Fig. 18 with the values of (EA)FE determined
from the FE analysis. The range of (EA)c/(EA)FE is from 0.979 to 1.106
for circular columns and the corresponding range is from 0.978 to
1.084 for square columns. For the examples of 435 circular columns,
the mean value μ and standard deviation SD of (EA)c/(EA)FE are 1.003
and 0.016, respectively. The corresponding values of μ and SD are 0.996
and 0.010, respectively, for the examples of 411 square columns. It is
obvious that the proposed model can predict the compressive stiffness
of CFDT columns with very good accuracy.
It is worth noting that concrete is a time-dependent material and the
axial stiffness of the CFDT members will be affected by the concrete
shrinkage and creep. To quantify the influence, further research is re-
quired to investigate the behaviour of CFDT columns under long-term
loading.
6. Proposed model for compressive strain corresponding to the
ultimate strength
The compressive strain (εc) corresponding to the ultimate strength
Fig. 17. Verification of proposed equation of κc.
185
Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188
(Nu) reflects the deformation ability and ductility to some extent.
Compared to a circular outer tube, a square outer tube is less effective
to confine concrete in compression. Therefore, the square column
generally has a smaller εc than the circular counterpart.
The compressive strains (εcFE) obtained from the FE analysis are
used to conduct parametric analysis for CFDT columns. It is found that
key parameters influencing εcFE include ξo, Di/Do and ξi for circular
columns (Fig. 19), whereas the corresponding parameters are ξo, Di/Do,
and fyi for square columns (Fig. 20). In general, εcFE increases with an
increase in ξo as a result of better confinement from the outer tube, as
shown in Figs. 19a and 20a. This effect is more significant in circular
columns than in square columns. Meanwhile, εcFE increases with in-
creasing Di/Do ratio for circular columns when the ratio of Di/ti is kept
constant. This can be explained by the fact that the area of the inner
tube increases and more concrete is confined by the double tubes. Thus,
the circular CFDT column becomes more ductile. However, the influ-
ence of the Di/Do ratio is only obvious for square columns with an fyi
greater than 690 MPa, as shown in Fig. 20b. This is because the failure
of a square CFDT column is mainly determined by the outer CFST
component rather than the inner CFST. For the same reason, εcFE in-
creases with increasing ξi for circular CFDT columns, whereas the in-
fluence of ξi is minor for square CFDT columns. However, it is found
that the square CFDT column will become more ductile if fyi of the inner
steel tube is relatively high, as shown in Fig. 20b. To simplify the cal-
culation of εc, however, the influence of Di/Do and fyi is neglected.
Based on regression analysis, Eq. (12) is proposed to predict the ulti-
mate compressive strains εc for CFDT columns.
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188

Fig. 18. Comparison between (EA)c and (EA)FE.

Fig. 19. Influence of various parameters on εcFE for circular columns.

Fig. 20. Influence of various parameters on εcFE for square columns.

2.5 0.53
Do 3.3 3.2 Do 1.37
c = 4500 0.004 + 6000 exp ( 0.1 0.016 ) c = 3100 + 2700 10000 for square columns
(12b)
o i o
to to
10000 for circular columns (12a)
It should be noted that the ratio of Do/to also partially reflects the
concrete confinement level in a CFDT column and Do/to is included in
Eq. (12) as a separate term to improve the prediction accuracy. In the

186
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao
Fig. 21. Comparison between εcc and εcFE.
regression analysis, the obtained value of R2 is 0.907 for circular col-
umns, whereas the corresponding value is 0.848 for square columns.
Fig. 21 shows the comparison between the predicted strains (εcc)
from Eq. (12) and FE predicted values (εcFE). The mean value μ and
standard deviation SD of εcc/εcFE are 0.998 and 0.095, respectively, for
the 435 circular columns; whilst the corresponding values of μ and SD
are 1.001 and 0.113, respectively, for the 411 square columns. It can be
seen from Fig. 21 that the prediction errors of εcc are normally
within ± 20%. Compared with Eqs. (4) and (10) developed for the
ultimate strength and compressive stiffness respectively, Eq. (12) is less
accurate in predicting the compressive strain. However, the prediction
accuracy of Eq. (12) is still reasonable and this equation can be used by
engineers to conduct preliminary design.
7. Conclusions
In this paper, the compressive strength and corresponding strain,
along with the compressive stiffness are investigated for concrete-filled
double-tube (CFDT) stub columns under axial compression. The fol-
lowing conclusions can be obtained in the scope of this study:
(1) An existing finite element (FE) model has been directly used in this
paper to study square CFST stub columns under axial compression.
This FE model was further modified to simulate circular CFDT stub
columns. The predicted ultimate strengths and axial load–axial
strain curves agree very well with the experimental results.
(2) Local buckling of the outer steel tube leads to a reduction in the
compressive strength of the CFDT column, but the influence on the
initial compressive stiffness is not obvious. The limit criteria of
diameter to thickness ratio or width to thickness ratio specified for
conventional CFST columns are also applicable to CFDT columns.
(3) The superposition method generally underestimates the ultimate
strength of circular CFDT columns, but can sometimes overestimate
the ultimate strength of square CFDT columns. A strength correc-
tion factor ks can be applied to the superposition strength Nu0 to
predict the ultimate strength of CFDT columns. The prediction ac-
curacy of the ultimate strength is verified by comparison with ex-
perimental and numerical results.
(4) Using the numerical database, formulas were proposed to predict
compressive stiffness and compressive strain corresponding to the
ultimate strength. The simplified models can be used for the eva-
luation of deformation capacity and ductility of CFDT columns.
It should be noted that the proposed equations in this paper are only
valid in the following parameter ranges: (a) yield stress of the inner
tube fyi or the outer tube fyo = 200 − 960 MPa; (b) compressive
187
Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188
strength of the inner concrete fci or the outer concrete fco
= 20 − 200 MPa; (c) diameter-to-thickness ratio of the inner tube Di/ti
= 12 − 100; (d) diameter-to-thickness ratio of the outer tube Do/to
= 12 − 150 for circular columns, and wide-to-thickness ratio Do/to
= 12 − 100 for square columns; and (e) dimension ratio of the inner
tube to the outer tube Di/Do = 0.25 − 0.75.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant No.: 51678151). It has also been supported by the
China Scholarship Council. The financial support is highly appreciated.
References
[1] L.H. Han, W. Li, R. Bjorhovde, Developments and advanced applications of con-
crete-filled steel tubular (CFST) structures: members, J. Constr. Steel Res. 100
(2014) 211–228.
[2] X. Yu, Z. Tao, T.Y. Song, Effect of different types of aggregates on the performance
of concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns, Mater. Struct. 49 (9) (2016)
3591–3605.
[3] J.Y.R. Liew, D.X. Xiong, Ultra-high strength concrete filled composite columns for
multi-storey building construction, Adv. Struct. Eng. 15 (9) (2012) 1487–1503.
[4] M.L. Romero, A. Espinós, J.M. Portolés, A. Hospitaler, C. Ibañez, Slender double-
tube ultra-high strength concrete-filled tubular columns under ambient temperature
and fire, Eng. Struct. 99 (15) (2015) 536–545.
[5] D. Pons, A. Espinós, V. Albero, M.L. Romero, Numerical study on axially loaded
ultra-high strength concrete-filled dual steel columns, Steel Compos. Struct. 26 (6)
(2018) 705–717.
[6] J.R. Qian, N.B. Li, X.D. Ji, Z.Z. Zhao, Experimental study on the seismic behavior of
high strength concrete filled double-tube columns, Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 13 (1)
(2014) 47–57.
[7] K. Roik, R. Bergmann, Composite column design and examples for construction, In:
Proceedings of the US/Japan Joint Seminar, Composite and Mixed Construction,
Seattle, July 18-20, 1984, ASCE, New York: 267–278.
[8] J. Kleinschmitt, Zur Traglastoptimierung von rechteckigen Verbundstützen aus
einbetonierten I‐Profilen–Lohnt sich der Einsatz von hochfestem Beton oder sind
konventionelle Modifikationen genauso effizient? Stahlbau 74 (5) (2005) 339–347.
[9] G. Hanswille, M. Bergmann, R. Bergmann, Design of composite columns with
cross‐sections not covered by Eurocode 4, Steel Constr. 10 (1) (2017) 10–16.
[10] D.L. Chen, Steel structure construction technologies in Fortune Plaza Project,
Guangzhou, Architecture 42 (1) (2014) 6–14 (in Chinese).
[11] J.R. Qian, Y. Zhang, X.D. Ji, W.L. Cao, Test and analysis of axial compressive be-
havior of short composite-sectioned high strength concrete filled steel tubular
columns, J. Build. Struct. 32 (12) (2011) 162–169 (in Chinese).
[12] X. Chang, Z.L. Ru, W. Zhou, Y.B. Zhang, Study on concrete-filled stainless steel–-
carbon steel tubular (CFSCT) stub columns under compression, Thin Walled Struct.
63 (2013) 125–133.
[13] M.F. Hassanein, O.F. Kharoob, Q.Q. Liang, Behaviour of circular concrete-filled lean
duplex stainless steel carbon steel tubular short columns, Eng. Struct. 56 (2013)
83–94.
[14] X.D. Fang, S.J. Lin, Axial compressive test of columns with multi barrel tube-con-
fined high performance concrete, J. Build. Struct. 35 (4) (2014) 236–245 (in
Chinese).
[15] C.Y. Wan, X.X. Zha, Nonlinear analysis and design of concrete-filled dual steel
Y. Zheng, Z. Tao
tubular columns under axial loading, Steel Compos. Struct. 20 (3) (2016) 571–597.
[16] Z.B. Wang, Z. Tao, Q. Yu, Axial compressive behaviour of concrete-filled double-
tube stub columns with stiffeners, Thin Wall Struct. 120 (2017) 91–104.
[17] M.X. Xiong, D.X. Xiong, J.Y.R. Liew, Flexural performance of concrete filled tubes
with high tensile steel and ultra-high strength concrete, J. Constr. Steel Res. 132
(2017) 191–202.
[18] M.F. Hassanein, M. Elchalakani, V.I. Patel, Overall buckling behaviour of circular
concrete-filled dual steel tubular columns with stainless steel external tubes, Thin
Walled Struct. 115 (2017) 336–348.
[19] M.L. Romero, C. Ibañez, A. Espinos, J.M. Portolés, A. Hospitaler, Influence of ul-
trahigh strength concrete on circular concrete-filled dual steel columns, Structures 9
(2017) 13–20.
[20] C. Ibañez, M.L. Romero, A. Espinos, J.M. Portolés, V. Albero, Ultra-high strength
concrete on eccentrically loaded slender circular concrete-filled dual steel columns,
Structures 12 (2017) 64–74.
[21] A. Espinos, M.L. Romero, D. Lam, Fire performance of innovative steel-concrete
composite columns using high strength steels, Thin Walled Struct. 106 (2016)
113–128.
[22] J.Y.R. Liew, M.X. Xiong, Design Guide for Concrete Filled Tubular Member With
High Strength Materials to Eurocode 4, Research Publishing, Singapore, 2015.
[23] Z.B. Wang, Z. Tao, L.H. Han, B. Uy, D. Lam, W.H. Kang, Strength, stiffness and
ductility of concrete-filled steel columns under axial compression, Eng. Struct. 135
(2017) 209–221.
[24] Z. Tao, Z.B. Wang, Q. Yu, Finite element modelling of concrete-filled steel stub
columns under axial compression, J. Constr. Steel Res. 89 (10) (2013) 121–131.
[25] ABAQUS, ABAQUS Analysis User’s Guide, Version 6.14, Dassault Systèmes Corp.,
Providence, RI (USA), 2014.
[26] U. Katwal, Z. Tao, M.K. Hassan, W.D. Wang, Simplified numerical modelling of
axially loaded circular concrete-filled steel stub columns, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (12)
(2017) 04017169.
188
Thin-Walled Structures 134 (2019) 174–188
[27] Z. Tao, X.Q. Wang, B. Uy, Stress-strain curves of structural and reinforcing steels
after exposure to elevated temperatures, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (9) (2013)
1306–1316.
[28] Y.Y. Wang, P. Chen, C.Y. Liu, Y. Zhang, Size effect of circular concrete-filled steel
tubular short columns subjected to axial compression, Thin Walled Struct. 120
(2017) 397–407.
[29] M.C. Wu, C.C. Chen, C.C. Chen, Size effect on axial behavior of concrete-filled box
columns, Adv. Struct. Eng. 21 (13) (2018) 2068–2078.
[30] T. Yamamoto, J. Kawaguchi, S. Morino, Size effect on ultimate compressive
strength of concrete-filled steel tube short columns, in: Proceedings of the Structural
Engineers World Congress, Yokohama, Japan, 2002.
[31] F.C. Caner, Z.P. Bažant, Lateral confinement needed to suppress softening of con-
crete in compression, J. Eng. Mech. -ASCE 128 (12) (2002) 1304–1313.
[32] Q. Yu, Z. Tao, Y.X. Wu, Experimental behaviour of high performance concrete-filled
steel tubular columns, Thin Walled Struct. 46 (4) (2008) 362–370.
[33] B. Uy, Local and post-buckling of concrete filled steel welded box columns, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 47 (1–2) (1998) 47–52.
[34] M.A. Bradford, H.Y. Loh, B. Uy, Slenderness limits for filled circular steel tubes, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 58 (2) (2002) 243–252.
[35] Z. Tao, B. Uy, L.H. Han, Z.B. Wang, Analysis and design of concrete-filled stiffened
thin-walled steel tubular columns under axial compression, Thin Walled Struct. 47
(12) (2009) 1544–1556.
[36] J.S. Huo, G.W. Huang, Y. Xiao, Effects of sustained axial load and cooling phase on
post-fire behaviour of concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 65 (8) (2009) 1664–1676.
[37] Y.F. Yang, K. Cao, T.Z. Wang, Experimental behavior of CFST stub columns after
being exposed to freezing and thawing, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 89 (2013) 7–21.
[38] American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-14) and Commentary. MI, USA: Farmington Hills, 2014.